Yet another missive from London: Unleashed: Cabinet potentially top grade.
Rudd has given three of his Cabinet's brightest stars the responsibility for delivering the four key components of his campaign agenda. How these people perform will be critical to whether Rudd can deliver on his major program promises.
The unlosable election | The Australian.
With a personal satisfaction rating of 63 per cent in the latest Newspoll, Rudd is 24 points higher than Hewson was at the same stage in 1993, 13 points higher than Howard was in 1996 when he won from Opposition, and 23 points higher than Howard was in 1987, when he lost. The person who came closest to Rudd in the past 20 years was Latham in 2004, on 51per cent. On the question of preferred prime minister two weeks into the campaign, only Rudd and Hewson have been in front of the incumbent. Hewson had a 42 per cent to 37 per cent lead over Keating, but Rudd's lead over Howard this week is 50 per cent to 37 per cent, almost three times Hewson's advantage in the unlosable election.
On primary votes, Rudd's ALP is by far and away the best-placed Opposition, with a lead of 51 per cent to 38 per cent. Hewson's Coalition was on 48 per cent to Keating Labor's 39.5per cent, and a month before the 1998 election Beazley's Labor pipped the Coalition Government by 43 per cent to 42 per cent.
Mr Rudd's birthday present from his staff was a copy of The Art Of War, by ancient Chinese warlord Sun Tzu – essential reading for a man about to take part in a pitched political battle.
Yawn. Are they serious or just kids out for a lark?
In an interview with Fran Kelly on Radio national this morning, Rudd referred to workers who had copped "the raw end of the pineapple" under Howard. I wonder if he mashes metaphors like this frequently - could be quite entertaining, a bit like Bushisms.
It got a lot of publicity when it was launched earlier this week but already it looks like it is struggling. The last "news item" was on 30 July and Tanya Plibersek's 'guest blog' effort yesterday drew only 24 comments, a long way down from the 500 plus the blog attracted on launch day. One problem might be that for a social media effort its pretty cumbersome and inactive. It might also be that the ALP has yet to convince people that they have anything other than marketing in mind. Its noticeable that while the Kevin07 site allows critical comments, there is still no interaction. Tanya doesn't seemed to have responded to comments on her 'guest blog'; and no-one else from the ALP seems to have bothered either.
Welcome to the KEVIN07 campaign blog! - KEVIN07.
Kevin, I'm concerned about your vision of Australia, not for the short term, but for a longterm. A vision of a stable, secure and econmicaly viable country.
It's all well and good to connect to your voters through websites, youtube, myspace thats all weel and good but wheres your vision and blueprint plan for Australia by 2020?
Labour in the past has had an extremely poor record of delivering on economic results and social policy for the australian public over the last two decads at State and Federal Level. Under Howard we are economically more secure than we have been through many past shakey labour governments.
As a young voter, how can I give you the trust that you in position of prime minister would lead Australia and maintain the economic security Costello, Downer and Howard has established?
I dont want my kids to grow up during an economic slide or recession- "we had to have"!
A willingness to publish criticism on your own site has long seemed an insurmountable hurdle for major Australian political parties and corporates (other than Telstra). The ALP's site might prove to be a breakthrough of sorts.
If Rudd comes to be seen primarily as an imitator, a Howard impersonator, he runs the risk of ridicule. That can be deadly for a politician.
The wisecracks after Howard took his tumble in Perth — all of them essentially along the lines of "Will Rudd try to imitate this?" — illustrate the danger.
Very good point, Rudd's craven support for Howard on the Haneef fiasco is a case in point.
Coincidentally, or perhaps the Press Gallery is changing tack, Malcolm Farr ran a column along the same lines this morning:
THE Federal Government is targeting Kevin Rudd as a mere policy echo with few proposals of his own.
It will be interesting to see how much legs this line of attack gets.
Rudd plans republic referendum | NEWS.com.au.
OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd says another referendum on whether Australia should become a republic will be held if Labor wins office.
Another way in which Rudd is about the future and Howard is mired in the past.
Mr Rudd, campaigning in Tasmania, incorrectly named Labor's candidate for the vital marginal seat of Bass as Jodie Kingston.
The candidate's name is Jodie Campbell.
Yesterday, he put out a forestry policy which mimics the Government's and now he's done a Howard on the candidate names. Perhaps tomorrow he'll fall over too.
Telecommunications industry veteran Keith Ondarchie, Chairman and CEO of Clever Communications Australia, said: "Kevin Rudd has publicly made a number of statements on wireless technology that have been reported in the media this morning including comments that wireless technologies are "second-rate" and have a maximum distance of 20km. Both of these statements are untrue."
Before The Australian went to press, Rudd tried to stop the publication based on allegations it was a "stolen document" and the newspaper was ethically bound not to publish. Although a "leaked" document was used all day in question time by Labor, if it was "stolen" it could not see the light of day.
The allegations were baseless and contradictory. It was the latest example of someone who could once master the media overreacting to bad news because of a preoccupation with controlling the news. It was the latest in a series of feverish harangues directed at editorial executives when a "bad news" story loomed.
Will they ever learn?
Best proof this was an ordinary performance was that Rudd's office ``forgot'' to issue a transcript.
Practically every public utterance by Rudd is quickly turned around, distributed to journalists and placed on the ALP website, but not the exchange with Speers.
No matter, the PM's office had copies to spare.
Oh yeah boys, the other side can do transcripts too and if the boss stuffs up they will do it with speed and relish. In fact, it was the ALP in office in the late eighties that was among the first to use this technique with devatating effect.
Last night's reply wasn't about the budget. It looked more like St Kevin's strategy of appearing as Alt-PM. So he didn't address the Treasurer's manifesto at all. Rather, he sounded on many occasions as though he were introducing his own budget into the house. Unfortunately, this tactic is beginning to fall flat. It means that St Kevin is missing golden opportunities to attack the government. Missing the opportunity to lay into the government for its laziness and stupid ideas. And it is exposing the threadbare nature of the opposition's policy platform.
Nice summary. Especially flagging. A lot of commentators are now saying that Rudd looks tired. He must pace himself. A perception that the pressure of being Opposition Leader will not sit well with voters wanting to be reassured that he could handle the demands of being prime ministership. Interesting, too, since he has clearly tried to outwork Howard (legendary for his workload) but he seems to be failing at it. Rudd's legion of advisers need to convince him that he needs to be more selective in what he does and that goes for his overloaded, wordy and very forgetable speeches too.
Strange reply. Rudd didn't even try to land a punch on Howard or Costello and their Budget. A mark of just how good the Budget has been for the Government.
Rudd was keen to say: "I'm a conservative, too". Apparently, the ALP put out an ad too also designed to prove that there is no differences between the parties on big ticket economic policy approaches.
Once again the speech was too long and Rudd was watching the clock as he rushed to finish. Speeches lose their impact when you rush them. You need to slow and talk in digestible chunks.
There didn't seem to be anything in the speech targeted at swinging voters, it seemed to be aimed at making Rudd look like a safe pair of hands.
OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd has refused to rule out having some form of statutory individual contracts in Labor's industrial relations policy.
Imposing collective agreements on the whole workforce, by ruling out statutory individual agreements, is just plain political stupidity. Like it or not, AWAs have been in place for a decade - that's too long to go back now and trying to go back is undercutting Rudd's message about being the man of the future with fresh thinking. As it stands the ALP's IR policy is very definitely old thinking.
UPDATE: Spoke too soon, Rudd ruled out statutory individual contracts today seemlingly reversing yesterday's position.
From today's Crikey subscriber newsletter:
In the wake of Labor leader Kevin Rudd’s speech at the May Day March in Brisbane on Monday, a headline appeared yesterday on the Courier Mail’s website and in the earliest edition reading "I’m taking the Lodge, says Rudd".
But only early birds would have spotted it. Crikey understands that after a series of phone calls from the opposition leader to Holt Street it was taken down and replaced with the more civilised "I will win, says Rudd".
Habits learned in NSW politics, it seems, die hard – and that’s where Rudd’s chief press sec, Walt Secord, hails from.
The opposition leader seems to let his minders get away with it, despite the dressing down delivered by Laurie Oakes at Rudd's National Press Club speech last month.
Queenslanders learned of the change of headline thanks to the breakfast show on Brisbane talk station 4BC.
They have some interesting stories of Labor media management, too.They’ve been trying to get Rudd on since September, but haven’t even had their calls returned – even though Rudd’s office is only a stone’s throw from their studios, and he lives nearby.
BRYAN DAWE: Oh thank you Bryan. I love doing this. There's nothing I like more than an interview. An exchange of ideas.
Watch it, its wicked.
At a business observers lunch on the weekend, Kevin Rudd compared Howard's nuclear plans to those of Montgomery Burns. It drew a blank with many of the participants. But as I have a teenage son who seems to have memorised most of the episodes and I've seen a few myself, just accidentally because it was on, I was one of the few who 'got' the joke. Or perhaps many just didn't appreciate this mean denigration of the man who took us to Iraq.
BTW, why does the Government say Australia shouldn't act unilaterally on global warming because we're such a small country and our efforts would be meaningless. Whereas on Iraq, we have to do our bit for freedom etc no matter that very few other countries are doing so?
Rudd wife in '10 Most Powerful' | NEWS.com.au.
Ms Rein told Southern Cross Broadcasting yesterday that her husband, if victorious, would consult Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet head, Dr Peter Shergold, on how the contracts could be administered by public servants “without fear or favour”.
Why do they need Shergold's advice to recognise that the situation is imposible?
Prime Minister Rudd would have a significant material interest in the outcomes of a major government tendering process. That would, among other things, put intolerable pressure on the public servants involved. The Prime Minister's responsibility is to ensure that these processes are not only beyond reproach but are also seen to be beyond reproach. Otherwise, oodles of potential for political damage and for undermining public and market confidence in the job network tendering process. The Rudds can't put this off until after the election.
However, The Daily Telegraph understands a reason Mr Lawson left was over working conditions and differences of opinion with Mr Rudd and others in his office.
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Kevin Rudd, saying the federal Opposition Leader would make a good prime minister.
Demeaning.
The Australian Matthew Stevens Blog.
Rudd wants to re-animate a central commission and re-empower unions by restoring awards, broadening the allowable matters they cover and raising the prospect of a return to the currently outlawed pattern bargaining.
Unions don't care as much about unfair dismisals in small business (where there are no union members) or secret strike ballots as they do about being able to a deal with one employer and then rolling out across an industry. It undermines innovation, competition and flexibility and it is centralised wage fixing by another name. But it is good for unions and they will fight hard to get Rudd to remove current legislative provisions which make it difficult.
He will also hold talks with business representatives, including senior Goldman Sachs executive Bob Zoellick, and media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.
The meeting with Murdoch might be interesting. When Latham met with Murdoch before the last election apparently the media tycoon's first expressed concern was about the ALP's commitment to abolish Australian Workplace Agreements. AWAs are used extensively in News Corporation in Australia and Murdoch is apparently not keen to return to awards and collective agreements.
nowwearetalking - Editor's desk.
It was interesting to compare the two (Howard and Rudd). While both had compelling content, there was a big difference in the delivery. Speaking at an evening function at the end of a very long day that included the tragic plane crash in Indonesia, Mr Howard put in a remarkably strong performance and appeared to connect well with his audience. Making his keynote address to a breakfast gathering the next morning, Mr Rudd didn't have the same impact. He read his notes at such a pace it required solid concentration just to take in the points he was trying to make.
Rudd's press club speech yesterday was also spoiled by talking too fast. He needs to say fewer words and concentrate more on connecting with the audience.
By Benjamin Haslem
Kevin Rudd has appeared on Mornings with Kerri-Anne (Kennerley) and guess what, she got him to dance. Click on the image to see "Mr, err, Kevin" strut his stuff.
Amazingly, at last view, 58% of Sydney Morning Herald on-line poll respondents think this is a "ripping vote winner".
No need to try to snooker the Coalition on IR, Kev. As Bowie says: "Let's Dance"!
And tonight he revealed another one of his staff had been told about the dawn service concerns by Opposition veterans affairs spokesman Alan Griffin on March 30 but forgot to pass the information on because they were busy with the climate summit being held the following day.
Incredible. Forgot.
Rudd starts off his speech asserting that the next election is a choice between the past and future with the clear message that Howard has been there too long:
The core question for the upcoming election is as follows: whether Mr Howard’s Government, or the alternative government which I lead, is best equipped to understand, anticipate and prepare for the challenges we face to secure this country’s future.
Our core proposition to the people is that Australia needs a change of government because Mr Howard is increasingly locked in the past at a time when the nation must face challenges that we have never faced before.
He then goes on to argue that Howard is stuck in the past on national security, economy, industrial relations, climate change & water, and federal / state relations. Not all these areas offer compelling differences between Howard and Rudd.
He then flags the new policy areas of this speech: reducing the regulatory burden on business and IR reform.
Putting these two items together like this is clever because the ALP's IR proposals are usually seen as adding to the regulatory burden on business and Rudd can be seen to be doing something for business, not just unions and employees.
Rudd then repeats Labor's now familiar mantra on the boom - nothing to do with Howard, just the luck of the resources boom:
The core question for Australia’s long-term economic prosperity is how we re-build our flagging productivity growth. This is the only way we can continue to improve living standards once the mining boom passes.
This is all about making our own luck – rather than just hoping that we continue to be “the lucky country” blessed with abundant mineral wealth and burgeoning global demand.
Next Rudd tries to undermine the Government's claims about interest rates and to undermine Howard's boasts on job creation:
But rather than have this debate about the future, Mr Howard always prefers to debate the past – based very much on his own political rendition of this country’s recent economic history.
Mr Howard always tells us about 17 per cent interest rates under Labor. He neglects to mention that interest rates hit 22 per cent when he was Treasurer – a figure that has never been surpassed since.
And despite Mr Howard’s promise during the last election that rates would be kept at record lows, interest rates have risen four times since then.
Because of this, Mr Howard has stopped talking about interest rates and instead started talking about employment figures – but here again the comparisons are important. Mr Howard boasts that he has created 2 million jobs since March 1996 - an increase of 24 per cent. But he neglects to mention that not withstanding the international recession, Labor achieved a 33 percent increase in employment during its time in office, with 2 million new jobs.
After a few paragraphs of dueling statistics, yawn-making but necessary, its back to the mining boom:
The truth is, much of the current employment growth has been generated directly or indirectly by the mining boom. Our message to the Australian people is that given this unique opportunity – delivered by a once in a generation commodity prices boom - we cannot afford to squander the proceeds.
My message is that we cannot rely on our luck lasting forever.
And then yet more statistics
And then an endorsement of Ken Henry, who helpfully for Rudd embarrassed the Government recently:
Treasury Secretary Ken Henry’s framework for this challenge is what he describes as the three core drivers of economic growth, or the 3P’s: population, participation and productivity.
To these, I would add a fourth P – the planet itself, or how we respond also to the overarching challenge of climate change.
The third and critical component in Ken Henry’s tryptic is productivity.
Interesting, misspelling / misuse here. Presumably, Rudd means triptych
- A work consisting of three painted or carved panels that are hinged together.
- A hinged writing tablet consisting of three leaves, used in ancient Rome.
Rather than tryptic which is an adjective derived from the word, tryptism, for a bodily fluid:
A pancreatic enzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of proteins to form smaller polypeptide units.
Probably, the error resulted from Rudd or his speech-writer trying to be a little too clever. Interestingly, though, those three part art works were typically used in the Renaissance as altar pieces to focus the devotions of the faithful on relevant subjects. Perhaps, Rudd has elevated Henry to a new status. (I'm sorry, I know I'm a shocking pedant).
In any event, after this unexpected diversion into art history, Rudd goes on to restate the wondrous productivity benefits of his education revolution and proposed broadband network. So much of politics, like advertising, relies on mindless repetition. Again, tedious but necessary.
And then finally onto the new stuff on business regulation and IR. Took a little too long to get here. Rudd looked a bit like he was rushing to get through it all. I won't go through all the detail but I thought it sounded substantial and worthy. There's lots of room for improvement in reducing the regulatory burden in this country and its popular topic with business lobbies.
And then onto the really newsworthy stuff:
A Federal Labor Government will create a new workplace relations system that is simple, fair and flexible – and we will get rid of Mr Howard’s unfair laws once and forever.
- Our laws will abolish AWAs – and we will do so without apology.
- Our laws will return the right to basic working conditions – like penalty rates, overtime and public holiday pay.
- Our laws will ensure a minimum wage, set by the independent umpire that keeps track with living standards.
Rudd is proposing to keep a national system but through the referral of state powers and this fitted nicely with his harmonisation proposals on federal / state business regulation.
Again, Rudd was careful to ensure that his pitch doesn't look to favour unions so he took some pretty pro-business initiatives in requiring secret ballots before strikes and outlawing strikepay. He was able to refute ideas that IR will be back to the dark days under Labor:
There can be no going back to the industrial culture of an earlier age. That is why a further reform for the industrial relations system we propose will be to outlaw industrial action unless there is a secret ballot.
Labor has never before required mandatory secret ballots to authorise the taking of industrial action. Labor’s new laws will require it. We require these clear, tough rules to make the point that industrial disputes are serious. They hurt workers, they hurt businesses, they can hurt families and communities, and they certainly hurt the economy.
And then the tricky area of unfair dismissals, and again its a compromise, one that Rudd hopes small business can live with:
Under Labor’s system an employee can only make an unfair dismissal claim when they have worked at least one year in a business with less than 15 employees.
And just in case you missed the political intent of this policy:
We believe this passes the common sense test for small business.
And then it is a conclusion with a classic tactic of restating the opening message:
So this election will be about the future versus the past. That is the choice working families will make. And we, on our side, are ready for the future.
Not a bad effort all up I thought. A bit colourless perhaps.
In answer to a question from Laurie Oakes at the National Press Club today, Rudd admitted that recent media relations efforts by him and his staff had not been too flash and that he intends to make changes. Took awhile but maybe they have finally recognised that bullying, lying and intimidation aren't smart.
KEVIN Rudd will co-host Channel 9's Mornings with Kerri-Anne program tomorrow, just two days after being forced to dump his weekly Sunrise on Channel 7 spot amid questions over his judgment. The Opposition Leader will review movies and participate in a cooking segment, hours before he leaves for a trip to the US to sell his credentials as Australia's alternative prime minister.
Everyone's got to do KAK sometime!
KEVIN Rudd's press secretary Lachlan Harris yesterday declined to say whether he had run through Canberra in the nude to fulfil the terms of a bet. "Oh mate, I really don't have any comment on it," he said, adding it was "against protocol".
Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he has quit a regular television appearance because he is good mates with Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey.
What the ..What a dumb message!
KEVIN RUDD said yesterday that his office simply did not have the resources to read every email that was sent to it. He was responding to criticism for not being aware of an email sent to his senior staff more than two weeks ago warning that his planned appearance at a televised and stage-managed predawn service on Anzac Day at Long Tan could offend veterans.
Risible.
Rudd admits gaffe - smh.com.au. Gaffe it wasn't. The Government tried, and failed, to put Rudd's character to the test on the Brian Burke affair. Now Rudd, and his staff, have made his character a major issue all on their own. This may have been as Rudd now claims an oversight by one or more of his staff (including his most senior staff). That would be a generous interpretation of what seems to have taken place. Nevertheless, Rudd can't be seen to be tolerant of an office that stuffs up to the extent that it causes him to lie or mislead. Simply counselling them (whatever that means) as he said he did on this occasion doesn't cut the mustard for an alternative prime minister. He can't afford for another episode like this to occur and he better be damn confident that his staff won't let it happen again.
Does Kevin Rudd Need To Save Families From Capitalism?.
The core of Rudd’s argument in both of these essays is that capitalism will ‘tear itself apart’ unless it is regulated. This is because the self-interested pursuit of profit fatally undermines family and community life, which has therefore to be protected by government.
Of course, the question is all about striking the right balance. Some level of regulation is undoubtedly necessary while too much regulation has a stifling effect. Where the balance lies will always be a matter of argument.
At the moment some areas of federal government are definitely showing signs of over-regulation as Ministers tend to leave policy problems (like broadband) to the regulator(s). There are now 5 regulators in IR and there are turf wars and overlaps between bodies in various areas.
So you could certainly make out a case that some urgent overhaul is in order but Rudd is also right - government and regulation makes capitalism possible.
Link: Where has camera-shy Kevin Rudd gone? | NEWS.com.au.
Rudd has rolled himself into a tight little ball in a personal variation of the "small target" strategy. He avoids interviews, keeps his head down in Parliament no matter the furore around him and closely manages appearances within the arc of television lights.
The ALP's climate change conference today - National Climate Change Summit :: Home. - seems to have been devoid of any public participation. The website offers videos including a 'special message from Al Gore and an opportunity to donate to the ALP. But no blogging and no attempt at getting a conversation going. A very dated approach. Australian politicians just don't trust the voters.
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has denied trying to suppress an embarrassing newspaper article which questioned his account of being evicted from his home after his father's death. Mr Rudd said he had simply put his view to the newspaper and that was included in the article. Asked if he and his staff had applied pressure to the newspaper editor in a bid to stop publication, Mr Rudd replied: "Not at all."
Alan Ramsey has a great piece on Rudd and the media this morning. The import is that Rudd's media management skills might not be as good as first thought. Perhaps he is still a bit gun shy after the Brian Burke episode.
Not that Rudd lacks support - he has a six member media group in his office (what these people do all day is a bit of a mystery to me) - but the general approach emerging seems to be do the soft stuff (eg Seven's Sunrise program), avoid the tough stuff as much as possible and turn thuggish on anyone who diverts from the Saint Kevin line, which according to Ramsey is precisely what happened to veteran Canberra journalist Kerry-anne Walsh (KA): Opinion - smh.com.au.
Dulhunty (Walsh's editor) thought Rudd's response (to Walsh's story contradicting Rudd's recollection of being evicted from his family's farm) was a "good one" and he was "happy to have it". But then Rudd phoned again, wanting to know where exactly the story was going to run in the paper; it would be "a disgrace if this is the splash", and was it going to The Sunday Age in Melbourne - "I want to know right now." In fact, Rudd or his office rang The Age's Canberra bureau and its Melbourne office to be told the Sunday paper was not carrying the story. I phoned Dulhunty this week to confirm Rudd's calls. He said: "There were seven calls between him and his team, maybe only six, perhaps even eight, to try to have that story pulled. There was a bit of pressure to me, there was certainly pressure to KA to roll or she was [expletive] in Canberra, and all of this bullshit language. I think his minders were heavier to KA than they were to me. There is no doubt they did not want that story in the paper." Kevin Rudd has a dangerously glass jaw.
Interestingly, Rudd was dining with rightwing columnist Piers Akerman at the time in what one of his minders described as a very important lunch.
Rudd is seeking to style himself as a new more open type of leader with a focus on policies for the future, a slick online campaign (including some successful fundraising apparently), climate change summits and the rest of it but this desired image won't be credible if he is seen to duck media scrutiny or worse try to intimidate journalists and editors with some pretty crude media management efforts.
Maybe Secord got away with that sort of thing in his dealings with the notoriously weak-livered NSW press gallery but he's unlikely to get far with it on the bigger national stage.
And while Sunrise may have helped to create Kevin Rudd, just doing segments with Mel and Kochie is not going to get him into the Lodge.
Federal Labor has promised to lavish $4.7 billion to build what it describes as a national broadband network in concert with the private sector.
A joint statement from shadow communications minister Stephen Conroy and shadow finance minister Lindsay Tanner said the five-year plan would see a service with a minimum speed of 12Mbps available to 98 per cent of the population.
"The remaining 2 per cent of Australians in regional and remote areas not covered by this network will have improved broadband services," the statement said.
Perhaps it hasn't dawned on St Kevin yet, but Campbell's resignation sets the bar of political conduct very high. After all, Campbell has resigned over a twenty minute meeting to discuss nothing more serious than the establishment of an indigenous cultural centre, and as part of his ministerial duties, I might add.
Campbell's dismissal may have set the bar high if it was the continuation of a consistent approach by the Government over the past 10 years. It would also have had a chance of setting the bar high if anyone had the slightest idea what Campbell was actually guilty of. A Minister giving a hearing to an interested party on a matter within his portfolio responsibilities - what is wrong with that? There is no suggestion that there was any attempt at improper influence. Quite the reverse - everyone from the PM down has been at pains to argue that Campbell did nothing wrong and in fact acted with exemplary honesty and integrity. So why sack him?
In fact, the Government's lack of consistency on the issue of standards, and the cynicism with which it sacrificed Campbell, only seems to highlight its own hypocrisy on the question of political standards.
It’s a good test for Rudd in a way. Why he gave that ludicrous “My bad” press conference is beyond me, it’s just fed the idea that he did something a bit dodgy. Why TF shouldn’t he have met Brian Burke? I don’t suppose Burke was wearing drag or anything, they met in very public places, if it was all so sinister why didn’t the Libs shout it from the rooftops in 2005? Oooo look Kevin Rudd’s having coffee with Brian Burke, that’s the end of his political aspirations.
They didn’t raise it at the time for the simple reason that there was nothing remotely reprehensible about what Rudd did. Ditto Campbell.
Of course, there is no crime in meeting with anyone. In fact, politicians, as people's representatives, should err on meeting more rather than fewer people. Politicans, on both sides, regularly attend dinners and functions hosted by lobbyists (private firms, business organisations and unions). Over the years, senior politicans on both sides have attended and addressed JWM client functions (including John Howard and Kevin Rudd).
Yet, it is obviously prudent, if you are in public life, not to attend any function that you are not going to be happy to defend at a later date. (BTW former WA ALP secretary and now shadow spokesperson, Stephen Smith seems to have set a great example of avoiding Burke for 15 years).
Burke is not just another lobbyist. He served time for fraud and his influence was a matter of serious concern for former premier Geoff Gallop). Burke was on the nose with Rudd's party when he had those meetings in 2005. Rudd claims not to have known this - but given Burke's history he could have taken some precautionary soundings with state and federal ALP colleagues before accepting the invitation.
After all, surely Rudd can't have imagined that a dinner at a public restaurant involving 20 or so people would remain a secret. He must have thought that one day he might have to explain it.
In any event, Rudd now feels unable to defend his decision to attend the function.
Understandable, but I'm not sure that Rudd would have not have been better served by trying to mount some sort of defence. He could have said that he like many senior politicans often attend these sort of events. That nobody lobbied him about anything and that he saw it as an opportunity to talk with senior businessmen and public servants in WA.
Now, of course, this would still have sounded naive and a bit disingenuous and he would still have been criticised but at least he would have got out there a credible version of events. At the moment, he is getting hammered because it looks like his version of events is not credible. And because it is not credible, many people fear (or hope) that there is more to it. And that is where the ongoing dangers lie.
FEDERAL Human Services minister Ian Campbell today resigned from Cabinet over his meeting last year with disgraced former WA premier Brian Burke.
err, resignation, of course. Howard has not been quick to sack errant ministers, this departure clears the way to continue the pressure on Rudd and link him to the rancid sewer that is the WA ALP. It also ups the pressure - if Campbell resigns, why not Rudd? The days ahead will be tough for kevin.
Two polls (Newspoll, AC Nielson) published today show NSW Opposition leader going backwards despite a relatively flat economy and the widespread dislike (perhaps contempt and exasperation) in which the Iemma government is held in the media and in broad sections of the NSW electorate.
If these polls are anywhere near a true picture, and there's no reason to think that they are not, then the election is basically all over. Debnam was always facing a mountain and that mountain is probably far too high to scale in just three and a half weeks.
There could be many reasons for this: the huge amount the NSW Government has spent on advertising in recent months and the suspicion that right-wing christians are exercising undue influence over the Debnam led Liberals.
But three important reasons are also likely to be working in favour of the incumbents: Debnam is relatively new and unknown, the electorate don't think the Opposition offers a credible alternative and, well, things aren't going too badly really.
These three factors tend to discourage voters from engaging in the campaign contest and opt instead for the devil they know.
Rudd's energy and enthusiasm for media appearances might help overcome the first of these hurdles and he has a point of policy distinction on Iraq and industrial relations; perhaps also on climate change (Kyoto ratification etc) and maybe the education revolution (though this is still pretty undefined as yet).
Rudd is also doing the right thing by promoting these differences now rather than waiting for the campaign to start - a terrible mistake by some of his predecessors.
It may come down to the last factor - is the economy going along well enough to dissuade enough voters from engaging and giving the ALP a real shot federally?
OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd is on the verge of finalising his most important staff appointment, with veteran Labor adviser Simon Banks expected to be confirmed as his chief of staff (Trevor - it has been confirmed and he starts next Monday).
Mr Banks, who is now in a high-paying job managing government relations for global transport firm Toll, was once chief of staff to former Labor leader Simon Crean and deputy chief of staff to former leader Mark Latham.
From an historical perspective, Rudd and the ALP face a big, but not an insurmountable task, at this year's election. The ALP has 60 seats and needs to win 16 seats to govern in its own right. There are currently 3 independents in a House of 150, probably two of these could be relied on to side with the conservatives.
After the NSW / Qld redistribution this would require a uniform two party preferred (TPP) swing of 3.3% according to Mackerras after the proposed redraw of boundaries in NSW and Qld weakened the Government's position by 1.1%. But the Mackerras ananlysis is a knife edge one which would leave the fate of the government at the whim of independents. The ALP probably has to get over 4% to be assured of government.
Whitlam got 2.5% to win in 1972, on the back of a 7.1% swing he got in 1969. Hawke got 3.6% in 1983 when he won after the ALP under Bill Hayden got 4.2% in 1980. Howard got 5.1% in 1996 after 1.5% swing to the Keating Government at the previous election. (see AEC)
So why can Rudd win? Basically, if voters decide that Howard has been there long enough (coming up to 11 years now) and that Rudd looks like a safe bet for a switch to a new generation.
The economy is not the obvious winner for Howard that it has been in the past during Australia's long boom:
A more significant challenge for the Government is the economy: in particular Australia’s two-tier economy. While Western Australia and Queensland are gangbusters, New South Wales and Victoria are in the doldrums. It is WA and Queensland driving inflation and interest rates, but the pain is being felt in the more populous NSW and Victoria. It is a difficult one, and it should see the Government lose seats in these two states.
Voters are very exercised on issues like global warming, climate change and water management and these look like more being favourable to the ALP than to Howard who has been steadfastly refusing to ratify Kyoto for a decade and refusing to engage with carbon-trading until recently.
Some other issues are less clear: Iraq is definitely on the nose (and Howard is scrambling to try and get the Hicks issue off the table - including by attacking the US) and if the Bush surge fails to deliver it could make the election harder for Howard especially as Bush is scheduled to visit Australia for APEC in the weeks leading up to the campaign. Workchoices will have an uncertain effect, with the ALP still to put forward an alternative - a difficult task of balancing union support, big business and a growing segment of the workforce working on various forms of contract.
Although, recent polls including today's give Rudd a good chance and has him well-positioned, Howard has come home from behind at the last 2 elections. Its just that its got to be harder for him to pull it off each time and Rudd is a far more challenging opponent than Beazley or Latham. Rudd is more focused, more balanced and he's a workaholic who loves being on the media.
2007 is shaping up as another vintage year in Australia for sports fans and election watchers. Of course, the big events are often the least expected or the completely impossible to anticipate. January has been a good month for unexpected developments in recent years.
WA Premier Geoff Gallop resigned unexpectedly last January and Latham's demise took place during the New Year silly season in 2005. What surprises does January 07 hold in store for us?
Leaving the unexpected aside, the year is already promising an intriguing feast for us spectators.
6 February - Federal Parliament resumes. The fun really begins as Howard and Rudd jostle for that critical supremacy. As boring as parliamentary proceedings are, the relative performances of the leaders can still help to shape the media's perceptions and through them the voters.
11 March to 28 April - World Cup Cricket in the West Indies. The cricket season never stops.
24 March – NSW election, particular interest in western suburbs seats in Sydney and the attitude of Howard’s battlers in response to a slowing economy, higher interest rates and workchoices. Despite all the setbacks, Iemma still seems to be holding his own against liberal leader Peter Debnam. The Libs need a big swing to win (or more likely force Iemma to rely on independents in the next Parliament). The Carr Labor Government had a resounding victory in 2003 achieving 56.2 percent of the two-party preferred vote.
27 to 29 April – ALP National Conference; a major task will be the formulation of an IR policy that balances union and business interests; a battle over uranium mining and a great test, and great showcasing opportunity, for the new Federal leadership team of Rudd and Gillard, and Peter Garrett (one of the few genuine stars in Labor's front bench).
8 May – Federal Budget in an election year is a critical set-piece for both the Government and the Opposition. Both sides will have to operate in a circumstance where any fiscal laxness might see the prospect of higher interest rates raised. It will be Rudd's first budget reply.
July / Aug – Blair to resign? Blair's departure will inevitably bring a focus on the fate of the leaders who actively supported the Coalition of the Willing. The political quagmire that is Iraq will be a backdrop for Australian federal politics throughout the year.
July 7 to July 29 – Asia Football Cup. Not as big as last year's World Cup last year of course but it is Australia's debut in this tournament and big things are expected.
2 to 9 September – APEC in Sydney, normally a great photo opportunity but with (a lame-duck) Bush it could be more of a liability than a benefit for John Howard. Howard will follw the precedent and wait until after the heads of government are out of the country before calling the election.
Sept / October – A feast of football - Rugby World Cup (in France), AFL and NRL finals
October / November The election is likely to be in October or November, or possibly early December. Leadership will be a big factor as it often is. Is Rudd ready? Has Howard been there too long?
19 January 2008 - the latest possible date for a House of Representatives election.
Rudd calls up legends | The Courier-Mail.
Mr Carr confirmed he was canvassing policy ideas with Mr Rudd but refused to specify.
Hhhmmm.
Six questions after Rudd had introduced himself, for the TV cameras, with his general introduction, and Gillard ("Over to you, Julia") had had a few words to say, the Seven network's Mark Riley went for the soft underbelly.
Q: "Mr Rudd, you've said a couple of times that what we don't need is any more rhetoric, but I've counted nine times that you've said 'fork in the road'. Does that work better than [Mark Latham's] 'ladder of opportunity', do you think?"
Rudd, his tone sharper: "Nice piece of scepticism on day one. Thank you for that. I'm sure that's what you're paid to provide. When I talk about - and you're very good at it on Sunday, I watched you - but when I talk about a fork in the road I mean it. It is; there are choices. What's a fork in the road? You can go this way or that way. And if you can think of a better visual metaphor, I'm in the market place, come and see me afterwards."
So can the ALP win next year's election. Here are some key points to bear in mind:
All of this adds up to a very big challenge, but nothing is impossible. If there is a genuine national mood for change then seats fall like dominoes.
Overall, I think Labor's new federal leader got off to a reasonable start. There is a sense of relief about the change because few people, including me, believed that Beazley was going to win. There is also some trepidation, the ALP has been there before with the Mark Latham 'experiment' which backfired badly. So badly, that the ALP faces a huge challenge to win next year.
The Canberra press gallery went a bit ga-ga over Latham last time and I sense they are going to be a lot more cautious in their pronouncements about Rudd's qualities and chances of success.
Rudd has some appealing points. A good 'up from nowhere by his own efforts' backstory. Undoubtedly bright. There are also some negatives especially inexperience in federal domestic policies. Also the relationship with Julia Gillard, who opted for deputy because her backers in caucus couldn't muster more than 20 votes for their 'Gillard for leader' campaign. Certainly, a marriage of convenience.
Rudd's lack of a big idea in his opening gambits as leader has been widely commented on, including by John Howard, as has the ALP's mischaracterisation of Howard as a social radical. At the same time, Rudd's 'industry policy' suggestions did nothing for his economic credentials.
Dumping a woman, Annette Hurley, and putting another bloke in the shadow ministry was also an elementary mistake that should have been avoided.
Nevertheless, as the Latham fiasco showed, how you do in the first few days doesn't matter as much as how you do over the long months between now and when the election starts. The task really is to be competitive when the campaign starts and then outcampaign your opponent.
Sounds trite, but it does mean its important not to get too excited one way or the other after the first week.
Between now and the election campaign, Rudd and his team face some real challenges and opportunities - the NSW election, the National ALP conference and their response to the Budget for starters. How they respond will be critical.
It's an important job in any Opposition Leader's office. Michael Costello was not universally popular with the colleagues when he headed up Beazley's office and wore some of the odium for the ill-fated small target strategy (aka 'winning without doing the hard policy work' strategy). A good Chief of Staff, and they come no better than Arthur Sinodinos who announced his resignation today from John Howard's office, needs to be able to cope with intense pressure, understand the complexities and nuances of multi-dimensional politics, be able to deal with the media effectively and at the same time have a great grip of policy. Its not a common skill set. What will make it worse is that Rudd already has a reputation for not being a great boss, but, of course, most politicians aren't great bosses.