Labor strains

Just about everyone else in these parts seems to have expressed an opinion on the matter of tomorrow's ALP leadership, so, for what it's worth, here's mine.

I believe that  Kevin Rudd was shabbily and grossly unfairly treated when he was deposed in 2010. I find it hard if not impossible to believe, not so much the stories about his alleged poor management practices, quick temper etc, that nobody close to him, especially his then deputy Ms Gillard and treasurer Mr Swan, could muster whatever it might have taken to put him on notice to change his way or at least do something to address them..

In a week of intemperate comments and backtracking Mr Swan's stand out. Michelle Grattan : Michelle Grattan in The Age on Friday put it well:

Ministers are not only tearing Rudd to shreds, they are destroying their own credibility.Take Treasurer Wayne Swan. He said on May 18, 2010, just a month before he was party to the coup that ousted Rudd: ‘‘Kevin Rudd has a deep commitment to Australia, a fantastic work ethic, and a very good record to put to people at the next election.”

On Wednesday this week, in his brutal attack on Rudd, Swan said: ‘‘The party has given Kevin Rudd all the opportunities in the world and he wasted them with his dysfunctional decision making and his deeply demeaning attitude towards other people, including our caucus colleagues.’’

Was Swan telling the truth when he was  serving under Rudd, or is he telling it now? Swan explains discrepancies in his comments by saying he has ‘‘been a team player all of my life’’.  He can’t say he only became aware of the Rudd negatives in retrospect. He was one of the gang of four that ran the government under Rudd. He tried to get change, he says, but Rudd’s ‘‘behaviour then became increasingly erratic and that is why the leadership changed’’. Yet remember how late in the piece Swan was still praising Rudd.

Since Swan's tirade he seems to have kept his mouth shut, and other Gillard supporters have generally been more measured in their comments. IMO far and away the best statement from either side has come from  Anthony Albanese , about whose position http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/albanese-integrity-puts-colleagues-to-shame-20120225-1tuvb.html"> Michelle Grattan says

Albanese is using this ballot to register a retrospective protest over the 2010 coup: he believes it was wrong that it happened, and the manner in which it was conducted was equally reprehensible...By his decision, Albanese is also contesting his colleagues' argument that Rudd is too dangerous and shambolic to be in charge of a government. Albanese was a senior minister through the Rudd period; as leader of the House he worked very closely with the then PM. Even if Rudd is a difficult character, Albanese is saying, by his support, that Rudd's personality defects are not so great that he should never again be let near The Lodge.

I concur.

Despite this, and polling which confirms that Rudd is the popular choice to win the ballot, it is widely agreed by commentators that tomorrow will see Prime Minister Gillard confirmed by a substantial majority of the caucus, who on this occasion, in contrast to 2010, will disregard the polls.

Whatever happens it will be very hard to pull the ALP into shape to put up a reasonable fight in the next federal election. One of the few silver linings is that the election need not, provided the independents hold firm, need not be held until 2013. Many Australians would like to see that happen sooner rather than later, and I am inclining towards that view.

Former PM demoted to Foreign Minister, former Finance Minister lands good job

Photo taken today in a local car park. A reminder of how things change. Without necessarily remaining quite the same.

Today Prime Minister Gillard announced her new ministry , which includes Mr Rudd as Foreign Minister. I find it odd that the Kevin07 who led Labor to victory and then, in the opinion of the party's backroom people, had to be deposed because he ineptly took his party to the brink of defeat, has been restored to a senior cabinet position, one where the very qualities he was supposed to lack - ability to listen, consult and communicate effectively - must surely be mandatory.

At least the longwinded Mr Oakeshott hasn't accepted the cabinet post he so unwisely angled for and even more unwisely even thought - for several days - about accepting. A letter writer in today's Australian offered this suggestion "stick a wind turbine in front of Rob Oakeshott's mouth. His long-winded responses will secure our power supply for years to come."

And Mr Tanner, who was Finance Minister until a few days ago has wasted no time in securing a very good position in the private sector. This stinks. He should have to wait for at least a year before doing this.

Backroom machinations lead to change of PM

As The New York Times put it succinctly

Party officials decided to replace Prime Minister Kevin Rudd with his deputy, Julia Gillard, who becomes the nation’s first female prime minister.

This came as a surprise. The Rudd government has clearly been in trouble with public opinion lately but I'd have thought (and hoped) that he and his inner circle would have been put on notice to improve. What has happened is a cabinet reshuffle with Mr Rudd ruthlessly dispatched (to where isn't quite clear) by a combination of Labor Party and union machinations with Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan etc moving up a notch or two.

I watched events unfold on TV, alternating between the ABC and Sky. The ABC had more people on the ground and in front of the camera (Kerry O'Brien a noteworthy exception); Sky used more voiceovers but, perhaps because it's used to covering events like this, IMO it gave the public broadcaster a good run for its money.

Both networks seemed to cover the day's major events, including Kevin Rudd's farewell speech. His family stood by his side as he worked his way slowly, and with several lengthy pauses, through his notes. It left a bitter taste in my mouth: I tweeted suggesting that someone should pull the plug on him, not to stop him speaking but as an act of kindness if not mercy. While his words quite properly referred to what he considered his achievements, the images on the screen often reminded me of those of someone found guilty at a show trial in a dictatorship such as Stalin's Russia.

Has the combination of party factional and union ruthlessness and the media's hunger for good images brought us to this?

An impressive interview

The Prime Minister appeared tonight on ABC TV's Lateline.

I thought that he spoke extremely lucidly about a number of matters, ranging from yesterday's apology (which he drafted in longhand), through future collaboration with the opposition to address pressing indigenous issues (an offer Dr Nelson can't, and mustn't, refuse) to the situation in East Timor. The transcript isn't yet up on the web but I'll link to it when it does appear.

Update 22 February

Here's the link to the transcript.

Sorry

Today was an important day for Australia. In Parliament House Canberra, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition expressed their apologies to the stolen generations of indigenous people.

The media, eg the ABC website, have covered today's events in great detail.

Of all the comment and analysis about the event one remains in the forefront of my mind: Noel Pearson's in yesterday's Australian. The title, "When words aren't enough" says a lot, but if you care at all about the next steps which must be taken to follow up on today's statements, I recommend that you read , and ponder, it.

Just let him become an accredited bore

Mr Howard, the former Prime Minister, has been copping a walloping from sections of the media (or should that be the usual suspects?).

In his column in today's Australian Phillip Adams ("Unloved PM well used to rejection") rubs salt into Mr Howard's wounds, while on yesterday's ABC RN's Perspective (thanks for the tip, Noel) Mungo McCallum , did likewise (and showed off his classical learning: will his Latin quotations be the last ones ever allowed on the ABC before Ruddspeak and Mandarin take over?) .

I was not a Howard supporter, and don't agree that he has left Australia a better place than he found it ( for starters look at Workchoices) but I respect the dignified way he has handled his government's and his own defeat. Look at the top half of this picture for an idea of what I mean.

While there's only a tenuous connection between the two, these attacks remind me of George Orwell's 1943 essay Who are the War Criminals? in which he discusses appropriate punishments for Hitler and Mussolini, and concludes:

...let the pair of them escape with a suitcaseful of bearer securities and settle down as the accredited bores of some Swiss pension.

I suppose the modern equivalent of this (for an Australian politician) would be a package of directorships, media appearances and book deals underpinned by generous superannuation.

In time I believe that historians and other commentators will be able to assess Mr Howard's contribution to Australia with more detachment than the likes of Messrs Adams and McCallum.

One touchstone of Mr Howard's legacy will be how much of it Mr Rudd's government overturns or significantly modifies. I suspect it will be much less than those who mock him now expect.

For now, leave Mr Howard alone and let him slide as gracefully as he can into his new role as an accredited bore.

GG swears in PM and ministers

Today, in a modest ceremony conducted in Canberra, Governor-General Jeffery, in one of his rare constitutional appearances, commissioned Prime Minister Rudd and his ministry. The Governor-General's speech, which summarises his constitutional role well, is on his website , which also contains a list of all the new Ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

The ABC reports some of His Excellency's other comments at the ceremony.

Perhaps Mr Rudd won't marginalise the GG as Mr Howard did. When, not if, Australia becomes a republic someone will have to fulfil the role of Head of State. My view is that the Head of Government should not be the Head of State.