Kevin Rudd

The knives are sharpening for Gillard

Julia Gillard is in terrible trouble in Australia. The knives are sharpening and the men are meeting in the smoke filled rooms:

Julia Gillard - Caricature

Julia Gillard - Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

This will be a long, cold autumn for Prime Minister Julia Gillard. With polling at rock bottom, an appalling run of bad press, blunders and deep rumblings among her backbenchers, the sound of knives on whetstones is growing louder.

While most talk of a coup is from anonymous MPs, former Labor leader and Regional Development Minister Simon Crean was moved to publicly warn Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd off any move to take back from Gillard the leadership he lost in 2010.

Other senior ministers, including those considered most likely to contend any leadership ballot, have equally as loudly rejected a challenge and have pledged loyalty to the beleaguered Prime Minister.

But nothing can stop the speculation. There have been some suggestions that Gillard should herself declare the leadership open for ballot within the next few weeks in the hope of catching Rudd before he musters sufficient numbers, thereby sinking his chances.

But most observers believe the danger period for Gillard will come between the March 24 Queensland State election and Parliament’s May budget session.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The misrepresentation of Tony Abbott

Tim Blair outlines the misrepresentations of Tony Abbott’s words by media and Labor flunkies. This misrepresentation led to a near riot.

Last Thursday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was asked this question by an ABC interviewer: “Mr Abbott, today is also the 40th anniversary of the tent embassy in Canberra.

Do you think it’s still relevant, or should it move?”

Abbott’s complete reply: “Look, I can understand why the tent embassy was established all those years ago. I think a lot has changed for the better since then. We had the historic apology just a few years ago, one of the genuine achievements of Kevin Rudd as prime minister. We had the proposal, which is currently for national consideration, to recognise indigenous people in the constitution. I think the indigenous people of Australia can be very proud of the respect in which they are held by every Australian, and, yes, I think a lot’s changed since then and I think it probably is time to move on from that.”

Those are the exact words that Tony Abbott used. What ensued was nothing short of a media, Labor party and Aboriginal beatup of a non-story. Manufactured outrage based on lies.

The trouble began on Thursday afternoon when word reached the Aboriginal tent embassy in Canberra, not far from where Abbott and Gillard were at a restaurant function, that Abbott had said something bad about the embassy. According to the PM, Hodges contacted Unions ACT secretary Kim Sattler, who then circulated the line among protesters.

Sattler, Hodges and Gillard all now claim that the message passed on was exactly as Abbott gave it on ABC-TV. That’s clearly not how protesters heard it, however. The impression they were given was that Abbott wanted the embassy to be torn down.

Remarkably, nobody in this scenario apparently sought to check Abbott’s actual comments. Hodges reportedly got his information from journalists at the restaurant. Sattler received her version from Hodges. The protesters heard from Sattler. Then all hell broke loose. As Sattler put it on her Facebook page (before changing her story): “Tony Abbott just announced the Tent Embassy should be closed down and a huge crowd from the Embassy went to greet him and he had to be rushed away with a police escort!”

If someone in this chatter-chain had paused to review Abbott’s gentle comments, perhaps trouble might have been avoided. Well, maybe not in the case of the tent embassy’s more excitable inhabitants, who would probably be provoked to screaming rage by the opposition leader quoting Enid Blyton. But what excuse can be offered by relatively senior political operatives, with their access to the latest devices?

Some media have been caught pants down too:

The media have even fewer excuses. A YouTube clip shot by tent embassy supporters last Thursday shows Ten reporter Amanda Hart at the protest being advised by an activist: “Don’t forget to say that Tony Abbott asked for the tent embassy to be shut down.”

Sure enough, on Ten’s 5pm bulletin, Hart’s piece included this line: “The protest was launched by Aborigines from the nearby Aboriginal tent embassy, sparked by Tony Abbott who said the embassy, now in its 40th year, should be shut down.”

Remarkably, the piece also carried a brief extract from Abbott’s ABC interview in which he didn’t say the embassy should be shut down. The authority of third-hand claims from some muppet at a protest is evidently superior to words direct from the source.

AAP’s first account of Abbott’s interview incorrectly summarised: “Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says it is time to move the Aboriginal tent embassy in Canberra. It was time it was disbanded, he said.” News Ltd isn’t blameless. A pointer on News’s PerthNow site over the weekend carried this inaccuracy: “Tony Abbott has defended comments about the Aboriginal tent embassy in Canberra that sparked pandemonium.” Wrong. It was sparked by invented words attributed to Abbott.

PerthNow also ran this: “Gillard brave as Abbott incites protest.” Again, wrong. And easily proved so.

Bob Hawke comes good

Bob Hawke is slamming the power of the unions in the ALP and julia Gillard isn’t at all happy:

THE Prime Minister has dismissed a call by the Labor elder Bob Hawke to slash the power of unions within the ALP.

Julia Gillard defended the factional and union influences that were responsible for the destruction of Kevin Rudd’s leadership in 2010.

Mr Hawke, a former prime minister and boss of the ACTU, said in an interview with the Fairfax publication The Australian Financial Review that while his “first love” was the trade union movement, its influence over the Labor Party had grown to “suffocating” proportions.

But yesterday Ms Gillard said the unions were the champions of ”working Australians”.

“I believe our great trade union movement is important to Australian society and to representing the needs of working people,” she said.

“It was the trade union movement, shoulder to shoulder with the Labor Party, that fought back and got rid of Work Choices.”

Responding to Mr Hawke’s advice to the ALP to recognise the perceived negative association with the unions, Ms Gillard said the matter had been adequately addressed at the party’s national conference last month.

She tried to soften the public rebuke to Mr Hawke, once the nation’s most popular leader, saying he was an important part of the ALP’s history.

“Bob Hawke is, of course, a living legend,” she said. “Bob is right to say that the Labor Party needs to keep modernising.”

His criticism of undue union influence within the ALP mirrored the view of another former prime minister, Kevin Rudd, who savaged the power of the unions and factions in a speech to the national conference.

Mr Rudd said the party had failed to take any significant steps to rein in the power of factions and union bosses.

“While some claim we have moved forward on party reform, the truth is we have barely moved at all,” Mr Rudd said.

It seems to have escaped the notice of all the union aligned politicians in the UK, Australia and here that they are all facing the very same problems. Undemocratic, union controlled parties with falling membership is the common theme. But so wedded are they to being told what to do by union bosses they seem incapable of reforming themselves.

David Shearer has much to do if he is to succeed where the ALP and UK Labour will undoubtably fail.

Holding sway?

Greg Presland aka Mickey Savage, the third rate flea lawyer from West Auckland is a sore and bitter loser.

The clear impression is that the sudden publicity surge behind a Shearer leadership campaign was orchestrated across the left and right wing.  This is disturbing.  Has New Zealand politics been reduced to a group of powerful people holding sway over different political parties and being able to exercise significant influence over them?

But what is really disturbing is that now that the job has succeeded the right wing bloggers have obviously leaked all of this information out.  It has the potential to destabilize Shearer and cause divisions in the party.  Clearly the only safe course for any Labour politician is to never ever think about engaging with the right wing for political advantage.

He is of course talking about Fran O’Sullivan’s out of school talk that revealed just how organised and orchestrated David Shearer’s leadership bid was.

Sure though it was obvious, to all but the most blinkered Cunliffe acolytes,  that Shearer was the best leader because he passed the blink test, and that Cunliffe was like a nasty version of Kevin Rudd without Kevin’s vote winning talents?

The party of ideas?

David Shearer has made his first speech.

In that speech he said he wants Labour to be a “party of ideas”.

Shearer said he was “humbled to be leader”, and wants Labour to be know as “a party of ideas”.

“I am a fresh face for Labour and I represent a fresh start for New Zealand,” he said.

Isn’t that what Simon Power said?

“Ideas matter. In politics ideas matter more than the political players, because those people will come and go but ideas endure.”

And ACT of course use the “party of ideas” line too.

More proof of the VRWC behind him? Perhaps Hooton wrote the speech too.

Then again it may just be more of the same old Clark style of politics because Margaret Wilson also wanted Labour to be the “party of ideas”.

Within the New Zealand political context, the Labour Party’s historic role has been to produce what is now fashionably called ‘conviction’ politics and politicians. It is the Party the people elect in times of crisis. It is the Party of ideas, of reform, and the Party that does not shirk the hard decisions. As such the Party attracts people of strong will, with definite ideas, and a determination to make a difference.

Ahhh, David Shearer, same old, same old.

Or did he nick the idea from the ALP and Kevin Rudd?

If in 10 years’ time we have not renewed our purpose and our compact with our membership, then we will have failed to maintain our place as the true party of ideas.

Silly me thinking that David Shearer was going to be a fresh face. Instead what we have is re-hashed talking points from old Labour, the ALP, Simon Power and the ACT party.

Kevin Rudd shows the way

Kevin Rudd has blogged about wanting to change the ALP in radical more democratic ways:

FOREIGN Minister Kevin Rudd says the Labor Party is at risk of “fading away” and becoming a marginalised third party if it doesn’t change.

“There is a real danger that we simply fade away as other progressive parties around the world have done, becoming a shadow of their former selves against the aggressive conservative onslaught of a resurgent right,” Mr Rudd said yesterday at the launch of a book written by a former Labor staffer in Brisbane.

“We are fools if we do not understand that the public has had a gutful of what currently passes for much of our national political debate.”

Calling for the direct election of the ALP’s national executive and national secretary, the former prime minister outlined his ambitious agenda for party reform at a book launch entitled Looking for the Light on the Hill: Modern Labor’s Challenges by Troy Bramston in Brisbane.

Perhaps Kevin Rudd would accept a contract to assist NZ Labour to embrace constitutional reform of their party. Kevin Rudd is facing up tot eh faceless men int he smoke filled rooms, Labour ehre needs to face up to union domination of their party.

Great Campaign Ads, Ctd

This ad is “Kevin O’Lemon” from the Liberals in Australia was a real cracker. It targets the man who added “rat-f*cking” to the political lexicon. It is one of the best campaign ads of the modern era.

Spiking Rudd

Kevin Rudd must be fuming with the pistols at dawn threat issued by a Labor MP over a potential leadership change:

A GOVERNMENT MP clinging to the most marginal Labor seat in Queensland says he will quit politics and force a byelection should Julia Gillard be dumped as prime minister.

In a threat which has the potential to bring down the government, Graham Perrett told the Herald Labor was wrong to remove a prime minister last year and he would not be a party to such an act again.

Despite holding his Brisbane seat of Moreton by 1.1 per cent, meaning he would be wiped out if the polls did not improve, Mr Perrett said dumping Kevin Rudd had been a breach of faith with his voters.

”I will not be breaking faith with the people of Moreton. I did it in 2010 and I’ve been constantly reminded by my voters that I did that,” he said.

If there were another leadership change, Mr Perrett said he would quit politics.

”The consequence will be a byelection in Moreton.

”This is not about loyalty to Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd, it’s about loyalty to the people of Moreton. This is about me keeping faith with the people who put me in office,” Mr Perrett said.

He said the threat applied to this year and next, and most likely 2013, the election year, because he felt Ms Gillard and her government needed time.

The precedence for coups just before elections

With Phil Goff’s approval ratings somewhere near absolute zero Labour MPs worried about having a job after the election are thinking about rolling Phil Goff to get someone who might lift their poll numbers. It won’t be the first time a Labour Party has rolled their leader just before an election.

In 1990 Mike Moore became Prime Minister on the 4th of September. The election was the 2nd of November. That election was a fantastic birthday present for me and I well remember the party afterwards

Mike got a hiding but that was not really Mikes doing, he took one for the team and nearly came back to win in 1993, when no one expected him to get anywhere near Jim Bolger. In a 99 seat house Bolger only had 50 MPs, so Labour had to lend Bolger Peter Tapsell to be the speaker. This was a pretty reasonable effort after National had a majority of 38 in 1990, and there was silly talk of the death of the Labour Party.

In Australia the faceless men axed Kevin Rudd with characteristic speed when they worked out they would lose the next election. Gillard took over on 24th of June 2010, and had an election on 21st of August. Labour just managed to hold power in a minority government, which was a big improvement on what Rudd was expected to do for them.

So if the polls tank further for Goff a change could come at any stage up until the end of September. It is common knowledge that the coup was bottled after Goff mishandled the Darren Hughes Underpants Stealing Situation, and the very nasty tactics from the Goffice caused massive internal issues. Seedy stories in the Sunday Star Times about an opponent’s rooting is never a good look.

Will Phil be gone this weekend? Or will he or Labour’s caucus wait for another pasting in the TVNZ poll first?

They could gamble that TVNZ’s poll will show the opposite of Roy Morgan and 3News, or knife him and declare the poll as obsolete because changes have been made. If TVNZ’s poll is bad for Goff, then it will show the CGT hasn’t helped. If they roll him, and it’s bad for Goff then they can blame the poll result on Goff rather than the CGT. If it’s good for Goff and they roll him this weekend, they can say it was the CGT, and not Goff that caused the lift.

Big choices, big gambles for Labour. Have they got the nuts for it? My understanding is that the coup team is waiting on advance notice of the TVNZ poll on when to make the move.

Brash's extremist policys seen as sensible in Australia

John Key likes to label Don Brash’s policies as extremist. However in Australia these policies are seen as sensible.

If anyone doubts how left-wing New Zealand has become, one need look no further than the recent pronouncements of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard. You won’t read it in most newspapers, but Ms Gillard, ex-Trotskyite and left-wing factional heavy, has much in common with a resurgent New Zealand political figure; so called ‘extreme right-winger’ Dr Donald T. Brash.

The comparison shows how far New Zealand has drifted down a path of fuzzy, socialist sentiment, with little hard analysis of policy. That Dr Brash is labelled an extremist reflects a malaise in economic and political thought in this country. Quite the paradox considering that in 2005, 39% of New Zealanders gave their primary vote to Dr Brash, a higher percentage than Ms Gillard received from the Australian public last year.

The mistake that National and sycophantic National supporters mistake is that they think that Don Brash will not appeal to mainstream New Zealand. They of course forget their history and forget the results of 2005. Sure Don Brash didn’t win but he still got 39% which is far from the extremes of the minnow parties.

For a start, consider the 2025 Taskforce, which Dr Brash chairs. The central recommendation in both of its reports is to reduce government spending in to 2005 levels. This is hardly ‘slash and burn’ stuff, and aims to reverse the enormous increases in total government expenditure since 2005 to around 35% of GDP, from its currently staggering level of 45% (causing the government to borrow $300 million per week). By comparison, Australians consistently spend between 33 and 35% of GDP. The target Dr Brash is aiming for is still modest compared to Australia, and does not represent ‘extreme right wing’ values.

Consider the Gillard government’s position on budget surpluses: the Australian Labor party (ALP) is committed to digging itself out of deficit and producing a budget surplus by 2012/13 – despite budget profligacy under Kevin Rudd. This will require cuts, which the electorate is being softened up for now.

45% of GDP for total government expenditure is banana republic stuff. Australia, which Labour constantly refers to and also John Key as supposedly a better place to live because of all their largesse to the workers actually spends a whole lot less as a government. No wonder the gap is widening and not shrinking.

Consider Julia Gillard’s position on health reform in Australia. Although the ALP’s health reforms have been widely derided as weak and ineffective, Gillard has been on record talking about introducing price signals in health. Considering that healthcare is a budgetary bottomless pit of costs (since 2000, it has increased in New Zealand from $6 billion to $13.5 billion), this is wise. But the only person in New Zealand politics who would adopt that sort of language is Dr Brash.

The retirement age: the Gillard government is committed to lifting the retirement age to 67 due to Australians living longer, healthier lives, and to help the offset the pension burden this entails. Dr Brash agrees. Prime Minister John Key has pledged this will never happen under his premiership –deferring the inevitable decision.

Take welfare dependency: Ms Gillard and her government plan to tackle long term welfare dependency, particularly those on disability and sickness benefits, whose rolls have grown inexorably over the past two decades, despite better health outcomes nationally. Dr Brash made similar suggestions as National Party leader.

Lots of similarities there. Don Brash doesn’t look so extreme, in fact John Key is the one looking extreme with the continuation of structural spending locked in by Labour off of the back of alleged structural surpluses which mysteriaously disappeared after the change of government.

Last night we saw Don Brash labelled extreme on raace relations by Hone Harawira, himself and extremist. But is Don Brash really an extremist.

The one major difference is in indigenous politics. Compared to Ms Gillard and the ALP, Dr Brash is not only not extreme, but looks positively wet: he supports equal rights, one law for all and the continuing redress of historic injustice. The ALP continues to support the Northern Territory intervention to revive dysfunctional remote communities. It has largely eschewed reparations for past injustices. Indeed the only real action the ALP has considered is a referendum on acknowledging of indigenous Australians in the constitution. And even this gesture is only being adopted at the behest of the Greens.

Perhaps not.

Finally, both Ms Gillard and Dr Brash support mining, and resource exploration. There is a perception in NZ that Australia is laden with resources in the desert that can be extracted with no protest, or disruption whatever. This is untrue. There are environmental hoops, indigenous issues and protestors to contend with – the difference is that governments in Australia tend to be pro development. Yet in New Zealand, the government has already backed down once on mining some of the 40% of the nation in the conservation estate. To be in favour of mining where a reasonable case can be made is hardly extreme.

I am glad that Don Brash has re-entered politics. At least we will now at least have a debate about the important things.