Kill the beast, cut his throat, spill his blood....

The feeding frenzy going on round the Minister of Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, is alarming. No matter what side of politics I have always been a bit alarmed when an Opposition gets the scent of blood. 

It seems that caution is thrown to the wind when a chink in a government's armour is spotted as though getting a minister to resign is a goal in itself.

I am of course not suggesting that incompetence should be allowed to go on unchecked, but has Fitzgibbon been incompetent? The Defence portfolio is notoriously difficult, and there is little doubt that there are those within the department who want him out.

This was true under the former government when the Minister was no less than former Liberals leader, Brendan Nelson. Howard resisted the temptation to sack him even though the (then Labor) Opposition were baying for his blood.

It doesn't seem to me that he has actually been incompetent. The fiasco of the SAS salary fiasco does not seem to me to be his incompetence but that of the public service. His relationship with a Chinese lady friend highlights the sort of carelessness that happens in Opposition which shouldn't happen in Government, and were it the case that we were talking about behaviour while he was a Minister rather than a Shadow Minister then it would be quite different.

Me old mate Alex seemed content not to be drawn into the Fitzgibbon imbroglio on Friday's Lateline but instead was unremitting about his innuendi that Rudd is in the pocket of the Chinese. He just kept repeating it and repeating it..."it's about Rudd, it's about Rudd...it's about (yes you guessed it) Rudd"

This practice of repeating it often enough until someone believes it  (the throwing of mud until it sticks) works quite well in politics. BUT it is pathetic!

Give us substance not innuendo.

Beneath all this the continuing slur that Chinese are somehow not to be trusted is ever with us. Doesn't actually do much for truth!

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?

Good on us

Whilst some comment has been made on the various inadequacies of yesterday's events

• Mr Tuckey's facetious comments that it would not change a damn thing and his laughable rationalisations for not participating (here). He says he is 'horrified' that the Federal Parliament should be turned into a dance parlour. This from a man called "Iron Bar" because of his notorious (and deliberate) stance when it comes to subtlety!
• There is much angst about what Nelson should and should not have said
• There is a clear understanding that as wonderful as this event was, it is largely symbolical and we must move on to action
• I note that having received an apology from the Rudd staffers who should have known better than to betray the spirit of the day by turning their back on the leader of the Opposition, that Nelson is now whining because Rudd has not apologised to him for the behaviour of others. This is rich coming from the leader of a party who have for a decade said that they don't need to apologise for what other people have done. Alack, methinks we are back to game playing the political game

I'm glad nevertheless that there seems to be genuine energy and commitment to move on with vigour, innovation and dedication rather than nitpick.

We will be at our best today if......

The above quotation from Brendan Nelson is true and I thought he spoke eloquently and imaginatively, even if some of the things he said were inappropriate. Maybe true, but inappropriate for today.

Too much justification of the former government's policies. Policies which are hailed by some and decried by others both black and white (eg. the 'NT intervention'). 

As usual, many aboriginal people were entirely gracious even in the face of inadequacy. One older man interviewed on the lawns highlighted some issues that he thought were inappropriate, but nevertheless said (of Nelson) "At least he got out of the boat...he could have stayed in..but he got out!"

Yes, I think this is true. 

Apology, saying sorry, is an inadequate science. We will never get it right. And I think we have to accept that.

Having struggled with an exercise on behalf of the Church to try and offer an opportunity for us to repent of some  of the abuse stuff we have been involved in, but we were denied the opportunity to do this; I am well aware that we struggle to get this important stuff right. And don't usually manage it.

Let's resist the temptation to dissect. To move on is now our responsibility.