Lots of stuff going on

My head is buzzing at the moment. Quite a lot of big issues.
The Greek Economy, Marriage Equality, Terrorism....and so it goes on
I am thankful that life does not get smaller.

As we were leaving church on Sunday my dear and faithful parishioner said "What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
I suggested to her that  the 2 mins for such conversations was not going to allow me to discuss this with her on the doorstep of the church.

I also had a bit of a feeling that I was being corralled ....as  a trendy lefty....( a descriptor I steadfastly deny) to say stuff I would almost surely entirely regret.

First of all let me say that I eschew being driven into a corner where what is not being sought is freedom of expression but the capacity to put my foot into my mouth

So surprisingly I feel a bit sorry, for Barnaby who  has been told that he will not be allowed to be on Q&A tonight. Bully boys at Government Head Office ( it goes right to the top) will be stopping national dialogue...no senior ministers will be allowed to be on the national broadcasters flagship program Q & A...and Barnaby is the first casualty.
Now, I am no Barnaby fan.....but at least he is usually unafraid to confront his critics.


Democracy is threatened when power says "You are not allowed to speak!"

We all wait with baited breath to see what Malcolm will do !  He does appear to buckle
And we had all hoped he was better than that!
Let's wait for next week

The best laid plans

If I were Kevin Rudd I would be wondering what information Malcolm Turnbull has that has caused him to decide to stay in politics.

Clearly (and not unreasonably) Turnbull is an ambitious man, and one suspects that he believes that Rudd is in danger of losing the next election. This seemed unthinkable 6 months, 12 months or 2 years ago...but does now seem a possibility.

One guesses that Malcolm is attracted to being part of the next liberal government!

So Kevin might be feeling a little edgy.

However, I guess he could also be reassured when he looks at Turnbull's record at testing the political wind. Which is not particularly good!

In fact Rudd may well be rubbing his hands with glee at the destabilisation that this is going to bring to Abbot's Liberal Party.

Scalping the scalpless!

After over a decade of Howard Government Minister refusing to resign over a variety of failures in their portfolios, there is certain sense of irony about they baying at the door Peter Garrett. He is of course a high-profile minister, probably the most instantly recognisable after the PM, and there would seem to be little doubt that things are not as they should be with regard to the supervision of the home-insulation fiasco.
Under my old rules, (the buck stops here), he should probably go. In the light of the experience of the last decade, no one takes ultimate responsibility for anything and ministers don't resign.
As I have observed before about garrett (and indeed about Turnbull...) as one who is not a 'dyed in the wool' politician. I suspect he will tire of the political game playing, and get out. To much time trying to get the upper hand instead of addressing the issues.
Turnbull and Garrett wanted to change things, not ultimately to see one party victorious over another at any cost. In the end will they both have to realise that Parliament is not the place for idealism? I suspect so!

Back to the future

It is clear, then, what Abbot's policy is as he appoints Bronwyn Bishop, Ruddock and Andrews to his front bench.

While there is no doubt that this group of 'tried' politicians have had measured success in a reactionary sort of way in the past; it is difficult to see that they will not alienate the very sections of the electorate that the Opposition need to attract back.

No wonder Turnbull will break with their reactionary sort of stuff. [I am trying not to invoke Godwin's law (here) and it is difficult.] One wonders if there will be a party split. I imagine Malcolm is unlikely to be bothered with such political nitpicking, but I guess we shall see.

Personally I think that Ruddock is one of the most divisive ministers we have had, how ever well (or not) he may have dealt with issues of immigration, he presents as a hard, callous and unbending individual. Bronwyn is almost a caricature, and Kevin Andrews recent participation in the leadership shenanigans leaves all sorts of questions unanswered.

Maybe he never thought he would be a potential leader and was just precipitating a crisis but even the bookies didn't give him any chance of being elected the other day. I was also bemused by one very senior journalist's radio comments about his putting himself forward, the disdain was palpable.

I personally don't think they have done themselves any favours.

The electorate will easily perceive that this is a "tried" team...but I wonder if they will also think that it is 'true'

Going out with a bang

There is no doubt, then, that Malcolm has decided he is not coming back! His lastest declamations on his blog ( reported here) and blog is here, declaim that he is of the opinion that the Liberal party has no likelihood of being taken seriously on climate change. Or of forming a credible policy.
This may or may not be the point. It points to the fact of why his leadership was always tenuous, he was more interested in the policy than the politics. And in politcs you have to do both.
It's true in parishes, too, the leadership can often have a very clear idea of what to do for the future but you have to be able to carry the community with you. This can sometimes test everyone other than the most patient, or saintly. It's often noted that Moses led the people out of Egypt into the wilderness to make a six week trip that ended up taking forty years! Sometimes it feels like that in parishes.
Certainly it must have felt like that to Turnbull, who with his fine mind and can-do ability readily grasped what needed to be done. This is why I kept predicting that he wouldn't be able to go the distance. Hanging round for forty years is not his style.
Of course in regard to climate change 'hanging round for forty years' is in no one's interest. And may indeed be too late.
Malcolm has decided to go out fighting, but go out he will!

When the party turns sour!

A curious concatenation of articles in today's Advertiser (pp 22-23). The occasional legal article by Richard Mellows , president of the Law Society, is entitled "Who to blame when party turns sour" and sits opposite the weekly article by former Liberal Minister Alexander Downer.

But Mellows' fairly innocuous article is not about the implosion of the Liberal Party, but rather about the duty of care that clubs and licensed premises might have towards their patrons if a fracas breaks out.

A. Downer's article is perhaps less outrageous than his usual weekly provocations; it reminds us that this particular crisis is an important one: Not all is lost for the Liberals at the next election, he says, but they had better make the right decisions this week. If they don't, it could take quite a few years to return to the treasury benches.

As is often observed our system of government depends on strong Opposition and it would be good if this could be re-established.

What, however, it seems to me is the problem for the Liberals (or any politicians for that matter) is how do you balance idealism or initiative with political expediency.

On the one hand if we are to address difficult issues then initiative needs to be encouraged (muddling along just won't do), but in order to be able to implement innovative policy you have to be able to have grass roots rapport and support.

The Liberals in the last decade seemed to master this identification of what rang bells with the electorate.

At times this was nasty. The illegal immigration fiascos worked as a scare-mongering tactic. Still do! And they worked as a vote winner as they appealed to insecurity.

The electorate is pretty conservative, and this works against innovation and idealism.

So I suggest that forces within the Liberal Party have decided "Blow the idealism" we need to create a clear sense of difference between us and the Government. It is the beginning of a scare tactic in essence. And will get grubbier.

The luckiest

Ben Folds has a great song called the Luckiest. I love this song, I am reminded that it's a song I suppose he wrote when he lived at Unley, and the personal references are all the more pignant because of it.

I don't get many things right the first time
In fact, I am told that a lot
Now I know all the wrong turns, the stumbles and falls
Brought me here

And where was I before the day
That I first saw your lovely face?
Now I see it everyday
And I know

That I am
I am
I am
The luckiest

What if I'd been born fifty years before you
In a house on a street where you lived?
Maybe I'd be outside as you passed on your bike
Would I know?

And in a white sea of eyes
I see one pair that I recognize
And I know

That I am
I am
I am
The luckiest

I love you more than I have ever found a way to say to you

Next door there's an old man who lived to his nineties
And one day passed away in his sleep
And his wife; she stayed for a couple of days
And passed away

I'm sorry, I know that's a strange way to tell you that I know we belong
That I know

That I am
I am
I am
The luckiest

This week's luckiest is Mike Rann! Lucky that in a week in which he could have gone down that there was more spin for Malcolm Turnbull in the other direction. I imagine he won't be quite so teflon-coated in future. Can't wait to see what Alex will make of it on Monday!!!!

Liberal leadership

Good on Malcolm for calling out the idiots who say that Liberals should stand for nothing. In saying that they should stand for something, he will discover whether they do.

And we will discover whether he does.

Alpha versus sigma

Someone once said to me about a person with whom I have some dealings "Ah well I suppose he's not bad for an alpha male!" She was right, but any alpha male is pretty difficult to take.

It is what gives some amusement to politics I suppose.

Self-proclaimed alpha leader Turnbull handing out fiats to his party cohorts to make sure that another alpha protege Mr Dutton gets a safe seat.

And oh to be Barnaby Joyce who is so alpha-assured that he can tell them all to go and get nicked.

I still predict that Malcolm will tire of this!

Death by essay

One can only imagine that Malcolm Turnbull has a death wish. After pouring scorn at Rudd for being out of touch by writing an essay on economics he responds how?.............................by writing an essay!!!!

Who does he think the electorate is?

He needs to be assured that most of us struggle to read two turgid paragraphs, let alone a diatribe in response. (Mr Rudd could well take note too!)

As far as I can tell...and I used my rapid reading skills to read the idiocy this afternoon...Turnbull's essay is nothing of the sort!

It is a political diatribe which begins by regurgitating the nonsensical garbage that is transparently political rather than analytical...

He begins his essay with the catchcry of the last few months

"So far, all the Prime Minister has built is a mountain of debt.

We are heading for $315 billion of total debt, the largest increase by far in borrowings by any government in peacetime.

This debt represents about $13,000 for every Australian man, woman and child, and never has so much public debt been accumulated with so little to show for it.

There has been $23bn in cash handouts; borrowed, then given away"

All I can say is blah blah blah!!

His essay is an exercise in name calling and suggestion hinting...labelling Rudd as "the philosopher king" and as delivering a "sermon" he is using the language of slur rather than that of analysis.

If, Mr T, you are going to use the language of slur then let us not pretend this serious essay .

In reality it is an exercise in desperation.,

The only saving grace for the flailing leader of the Opposition is that the average voter is not going to read this any way.

Friends like Wilson

Poor old Malcolm! With friends like Wilson who needs.......well, enemies. Though perhaps Wilson acts like an enema and gives the good Mr Turnbull the s*%$#s

Polls, polls and damned statistics. Or The demise of Malcolm Turnbull

I still remain committed to the idea that Malcolm Turnbull will tire of the political game playing. In reality it takes too much energy to master the polls and the statistics and this constantly detracts from the important stuff. Yesterday's polls in The Australian (see full article here) show only slight improvement in his standing as preferred Prime Minister. Coming off a very low base it would be hard to get any worse.
What is perhaps more disconcerting is that Peter Costello is still seen by more Liberals as a preferable leader despite the fact that he has disqualified himself and is on the way out. Similarly laughing Joe Hockey, who also says he is not in the running. The desperate cries (or perhaps "sighs") of the Abbots and the Pynes become less and less convincing; they two are very ambitious people and I swear I will scream if I hear Pyne say yet one more time "All I want to do is to serve the electorate of Sturt"
I guess Malcolm is a big boy and will know when enough is enough. Till then it is all a bit sad.

The debacle of scalping

Once again this week we will be diverted by our Federal Parliament (on both sides) trying to get another scalp. This time the Federal Treasurer and/or the PM (good luck with that) is in the sights of the Opposition, and the PM (in a quiet measured way) gave notice that two can play at that game (quite good background here...poor old Mr Grech)

My question is not about the substance of this, 

[though I do find myself wondering  why it is so strange that politicians should be being criticised for being available to people who are worried about their businesses collapsing]

but in reality is this what we pay our politicians to do. This is, of course, posturing for the cameras. I am not suggesting that "misleading the Parliament" is not serious, and if Treasurer Swan has done so then he should probably go. Though I have noted before that the previous government seemed to have long ago stopped requiring Ministers to fall on their sword. 

Hardly surprising from a government led by a man whose misplaced hubris prevented him from apologising for almost anything...certainly for the grossest abuses to the weakest in our society.

But I ask again....is this  posturing.... on either side what we pay our politicians to be and do?

I think not!

You've gotta laugh - creating a Rudd mythology

Last night's Q&A continued to show that this show is good for a laugh, and has a totally different style from much of the dreary garbage that passes for pacey debate between politicians.

Much of the action comes from the almost random throwing together of diverse politicians which last night included the Nationals Barnaby Joyce(left) and Labor's Peter Garrett. There was also Green's Sarah Hansen-Young, and Liberal Pru Goward. Along with black playwright, director and dramaturg Wesley Enoch  the mix was right for many good exchanges.

One thing that interests me is the way that the right has obviously been advised to create a Rudd mythology. This has many aspects. One of them is that he is too smart for his own good...and by implication ours. And that he talks incessantly.

So I had to laugh when the "never backward in coming forward" Senator Joyce accused Garrett of taking lessons from the PM and creating a "wall of sound"  ie. talk, talk talk and never allowing discussion. 

I don't think this is true, I think this is the mythology that they are trying to create.

What was farcical was that Joyce had himself talked down almost everyone on the panel throughout the show, Ms Goward, ever perceptive and articulate, was getting quite annoyed by the end. The main "wall of sound" was coming from Barnaby Beagle  himself.

He also added to the creation of the Garrett mythology ("what has happened to Peter Garrett activist Rock star?")  by jokingly, persistingly and embarrasingly interrupting the Minister "OOOh where's Peter Garrett, where's Garret...he's disappeared."

As I say to my children, funny once not funny twice!

In the end this sort of perception-creating politics is not about  truth, it is about creating perception. And the two are not necessarily the same. They are more about manipulating the voter.

I suppose it happens on both sides; Turnbull is maligned by his opponents (as Andrew Lloyd Webber says about Cameron Mackintosh..."isn't he rich...richer than me" (You tube here))...while Ruddy is just as rich. The politics of perception and mal-image is not helpful

Disingenuous

Kerry O' Brien accused Malcolm Turnbull of being disingenuous, (elsewhere defined as lacking candor) when he said that Treasurer Swan had declared on Sunday a 51 billion dollar shortfall, and today the PM talked of 150 billion. Turnbull could not resist saying "At this rate by tomorrow..."
Now, he is not given to taking such cheap shots, so, O'Brien rightly called him out. (you can chase it down here). I think Kerry the Red delighted in making dear Malcolm squirm, (it was his first program back for 2009).
Turnbull, who has rightly declared that a principal crisis strategy is bi-partisanship, likes (I suspect) economic management and dislikes political gameplaying. Because he doesn't like it he is uncomfortable and more importantly unconvincing. He doesn't seem like a political leader, it was interesting to hear Chris Pyne's faint praise ..."no leadership challenge from me" [anyone who has watched 'Yes Minister!' chuckles at such words. And leadership wrangling will not draw the public to support the Liberal Party.
Unless Turnbull looks like becoming PM he will no doubt lose interest in playing politics.....so I suspect unless there is some significant victory soon he will get out.
Not so disingenuous is dear Alexander who pontificated (yet again) on who is and who is not Australia's worst PM. (He chose Chifley and and Whitlam). A correspondent this morning rightly wonders why he overlooked Billy McMahon, and of course seriously questions Howard's record.
What is disingenuous is Downer's warning to Rudd;

He should not even dream of using a crisis for political advantage

What gall! Try telling the captain of the Tampa that or any of those who have been dragged into the war that Howard needed to bolster his own view of himself as an international player.

Not surprisingly-tough versus right

No surprise that Malcolm Turnbull gave Kevin Rudd the thumbs down at the National Press Club today. What fascinated me was that while admitting he had taken many 'right' decisions, his strongest critique was that he had not taken 'hard' decisions. There was an implication that it is easy to take right decisions but only 'real men' can make hard decisions. I
I sort of understand this, but I actually wonder if it's merely populist nonsense, that appeals to a pseudo macho ethic that some push-poller is promoting as the latest differential to be exploited .
Does the Liberal party assume that the electorate prefers someone who does what is hard to someone who does what is right? (The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive).
They may be correct, but that doesn't mean that this makes for good government.
Howard was 'hard' about immigration, sectors of the electorate loved this. But in my opinion it was poor policy, opportunism of the worst sort. It caused Australia to be perceived as racist in the eyes of the world, it was expensive and divisive. But hard....yes it was hard!
Hard is, of itself, not a value. We should be asking questions like is this policy good and right? These are the values; 'hard' is simply a description of how easily the policy can be implemented.

I'm more out of touch than you are

The latest politcial game is "Who is the most out of touch?", in trying to expose Turnbull as an elitist he was pilloried in this AFL Grand Final week for not knowing which team he supports...and plucking "The Roosters" out of mid-air. Not a bad try, unfortunately the nearest thing to 'roosters' are probably the Swans, or the Eagles or the Crows.
Does it matter? It seemed to, because it showed he lacked common touch. I remember a former Archdeacon, Alan Daw, telling some of us younger clergy that it always paid to know what was happening in the local footy as it gave you an immediate intro...not bad advice, at times it has worked. Malcolm could learn from the Venerable Alan
Now the Opposition is throwing it back...The Government is out of touch
This is just as tiresome, and is I suppose to be expected.
Parliamentarians are almost always by definition going to be 'out of touch' with their electorates. As relatively high achievers, from fairly well-educated backgrounds, with a certain degree of success under their belts...they are always going to be rather alienated from the so-called 'battlers'.
Indeed I suspect most of them would have no idea what it is like to be ina house where there is simply not enough money to see the week out.
So we do the best we can.
My advice is that these ruling elites should at least find various key voices who can speak into their ears to give them a hint of what it might be like for those who are doing it tough. This is much more fruitful than the "who's most out of touch?' argument

Same, same but different

There are lots of candidates for catchy - but cliched - titles for blogs about the change in Liberal leadership.
Methinks he protests too much is one. His need to convince the legendary 'battlers' that he is not a 'silver tail' was obviously uppermost in some strategists minds. I don't think he was very convincing but time will tell.
Turn Bull into reality could be another one. Again we will wait and see.

Should we worry too much that he is rich? In one way this is a sign that this is a man who knows how to achieve, and surely we want successful people in key leadership positions.
Any way I suspect in six weeks all this will be academic, he will either be chewing it up or stuffing it up. I suspect the former, and the personal critique will then all be a bit beside the point.
Certainly will be interesting
Personally, I was in agreement with Turnbull, that it was disappointing to see that the one of the first comments the PM made was that the Republic would now be a key issue.
This is such a political ploy, aimed at agitating the Liberal Party from within, about what is essentially a minor issue.
For heaven's sake a strong opposition is a good thing(here for example). On the other hand it was good to see an encouragement from Rudd to identify key bi-partisan issues. As these troubled times go on it is clear that there are more and more issues that are just important and not just or substantially political.
I could and would name the River, education, the intervention, the War and health as just some. of these

Ich habe Angst vor den Wolf!

I love and I hate politics. So I am rather watching Peter Costello with awe. As he typifies both of these facets. 

In literary terms you would have to wonder whether he is Brutus or Cassius. He could be the genuine Christian he should be  as the result of his upbringing, who has steadfastly refused to play the political game to the bitter end. So he has been caricatured as weak, when in reality he has boldly just refused to be recklessly ruthless. Or he could be, as Tony suggested this morning, skillfully flogging the book; ensuring another 50, 000 sales.

But I actually suspect that what we are witnessing is not loyalty to the Liberal Party or Brendan Nelson; but Costello's opposition to Malcolm Turnbull, whose dry economics he despises, whose political opportunism he detests. He recognises, I imagine, that he has lost his chance to lead (probably) so he will now do what he can to stop a Turnbull coup. I think he will succeed at this. Maybe already has done so.

Will the party then say: well Malcolm is too unpopular and dear old Brendan is not up to it, and try to re-enlist dear Peter. I don't think so. So failing that he will settle for second-best. Ensuring Turnbull never becomes leader of the Libs, let alone PM.

The winners in all this are Brendan, who will probably survive to fight another day, and of course the Government who must think that  any Opposition squabble is good.

Tension in the camp

As we reflect on the Howard-Costello years we see there was this tension between the economic discipline of Peter Costello, and the pragmatism of the successful Mr Howard.
Howard's genius was, I suppose, to be able to persuade Costello when it was OK to loosen the belt in order to buy the votes of the electorate. And to do this without fuelling inflation.
I think voters saw through this at the last election.
But it would appear that present leader Brendan Nelson is trying the populist Howard strategy, whilst his Opposition Treasurer Turnbull is at least as, if not more, fiscally restrained than Costello.
So it comes as no surprise that there was an "exchange of emails" (is this the 21st century equivalent of 'pistols at dawn'?). It also is not surprising that Nelson the present leader won, and I use that description advisedly.
It is, however, disconcerting for the poor dears when it all comes out in the public arena, and Turnbull is exposed as believeing one thing but having to say the opposite.
This is of course the nature of politics. Mr Downer did not bat an eyelid on Lateline last night, (false I hear you cry...but I resist the temptation to comment on Alexander's eyelashes...he was looking quite old last night)...back to to the plot. He said quite clearly that we may believe in one point of view but after the argument is over we tow the party line, even if we are fundamentally opposed. He said this is the nature of the Westminster system. I don't believe that is so, I think the Westminster system is about free and open debate...but he's a politician and I am not.
Of course he did point out that from Opposition fiscal promises are all hypothetical any way.
And we might also point out that the fiscal conservatism versus vote buying strategy is going to be the same issue for the present Government; though we are yet to see if there is the same sort of political opportunism in Rudd's heart as there was in Howard's. I suspect not.
But what would I know?