Trigger shy

Earlier this year when the “faceless” conspirators within the ALP plotted the brutal knifing of Julius Rudd, it is doubtful that they could have foreseen the public reaction and PR ramifications of their cold and calculated act. For a South Australian Government in the midst of leadership turmoil, the public backlash to the callous treatment of PM Rudd has further complicated the already torturous decision regarding life after Rann which is facing factional powerbrokers. In post Rudd political climate, powerbrokers such as Peter Malinauskas (whom Don Farrell has ceded complete State ALP control) face difficult decisions not only regarding who will replace Rann and Foley, but also how to instigate that transition.

It is clear from public pronouncements made by ALP HQ that they are eager to achieve an orderly “generational change” rather than a Rudd or Keating style forced dethroning. The difficulty facing the party, however, is two fold. Firstly, this process needs to be consensual. While I feel that Mike Rann has lost his passion for leadership (caused in large part by Chantelois scandal) and will stand down willingly, Kevin Foley does not strike me as the type to go quietly in the night. While his ego has taken a battering by the public joy over his recent troubles, it will take “close friends” like Koutsantonis and Malinauskas all their skills of persuasion to convince Foley that his time has come and he is a burden to the party. Even if the party is capable of ensuring the consensual resignation of Rann and Foley, an orderly transition can only occur if there is no contest over the replacements.

In a recent article regarding the Malinauskas/Weatherill breakfast summit, both parties were said to be united on the goal of achieving ALP re-election in 2014. I am guessing, however, that Jay and Pete have differing views on how to achieve this goal. It is likely that Weatherill believes that the party needs his leadership to succeed at the next poll, while Malinauskas believes that the party needs Jay to be loyal and take his medicine in a Snelling, Koutsantonis or Rau Government. The ALP cannot be victorious in 2014 unless it has a united caucus which is satisfied with the outcome of the leadership transition. It is difficult to foresee a scenario in which this can be achieved within the factional status quo. Recent events, however, suggest that factional unity is slowly eroding, and this process will accelerate as 2014 nears.

State Government Minister Michael O’Brien, member of the Right faction, recently departed from the factional line and called for a change in leadership. The suggestion that he was coveting a deal with Weatherill and the Left is a further complication for Right faction operatives. Plans to shoe horn Snelling or Koutsantonis into leadership is reliant upon the Right faction’s numbers dominance within caucus. The possibility of the fracturing of the Right vote within a leadership ballot is an occurrence which would remove ultimate control from faction leaders. The Right vote also fractured at State Conference on the issue of gay marriage, indicating the iron fist is rusting. There is a possibility that Right figures loyal to Don Farrell won’t recognize the heir apparent. This loyalty issue has implications in both directions.

Prior to the Foley Marble-gate incident, it was touted that Minister O’Brien would be sacked from the Ministry within the week following State Convention. Under the watch of Don Farrell (long time friend of O’Brien), his sacking from the Ministry would not have occurred. Under the new guard, however, his cloke of invincibility was stripped from him, leaving him exposed to the cold and harsh Malinauskas winds. Luckily his execution was stayed because the Government was forced to bunker down in the wake of the events at 4 am on a Sunday morning. The Government limped towards Christmas in damage control and baulked from self-inflicting any more wounds. Rest assured, however, that as MPs carve their Christmas turkey, plunging the knife into the succulent breast, their thoughts will be drawn to the crisis facing them in the New Year.

Breaking Point

When political commentators predicted that the SA ALP leadership would emerge from this weekend’s State Conference with a “bloodied nose”, I suspect they were speaking in metaphors. While Rann and Foley’s bodyguards ensured they were left untouched by irate unionists, Foley was apparently on his lonesome when danger truly struck. On the facts released, it appears the Big Kev was the victim of an unprovoked attack, but one could argue that he was exposing himself to that very risk as a high profile identity stumbling around the city during the wee hours of the morning. His headache from the king hit, however, pales in comparison to the head aches facing the party and leadership in the coming months.

Big Kev’s stoush outside the Marble Bar is not the only high profile confrontation that he has been involved in during the week. His Parliamentary encounter with Agriculture Minister Michael O’Brien differs markedly because it is suggested that it was provoked, and metaphorical punches were thrown by both parties. O’Brien, it is claimed, instigated the dispute by privately canvassing a leadership coup with Education Minister Jay Weatherill. While he has since denied the Weatherill component of that claim, he has confirmed his belief that it is time for a leadership change. While Foley’s Marble Bar attacker will face the maximum of a low level assault charge, party sources suggest that O’Brien will receive a political death sentence at this week at the earliest.

Speculation of O’Brien’s Ministerial sacking following his Timber-gate gaffe fest seemed puzzling in isolation, especially given the survival of fellow Right wing acolytes Atkinson and Koutsantonis following much greater scandals. When viewed in context of the claimed leadership coup, however, his imminent demise makes much more sense. While Rann is definitely on his “victory lap”, he isn’t gone yet and the Right is still undecided about who will replace him. Allowing a Minister who has publicly undermined the leadership to remain on the front bench is an untenable proposition. Rumours are circulating that he will be "sacked" by the Premier this week, making way for another Right hopeful, most likely Leesa Vlahos. I suspect O’Brien knows his end is near(or he should) and his public pronouncement on the weekend could at least make him appear prophetic when Rann’s time comes. It appears, however, that he has been caught backing both horses (Weatherill in private, Right faction candidate in public) and neither Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau will take this betrayal of faction lightly if the attain the top job. His cross-factional scheme, however, is perhaps evidence of a rift emerging within the Right faction.

While I am no longer privy to all of the internal machinations of the Right faction, I suspect there may be two camps with differing viewpoints on leadership succession. One camp will fight Weatherill’s ascension to the death, even if internal polling or logic suggests that this will lead to political suicide and defeat in 2014. The egos of Koutsantonis, Snelling and Rau would never countenance that their leadership would be a failure, so the anti-Weatherill camp will mainly consist of friends and allies of those MPs and devout Right wing ideologues. The opposing camp of Right faction members would consist of realists that are willing to swallow their pride and acknowledge that Jay is the most likely candidate to deliver a victory to the ALP in 2014. This group would consist of people that are concerned more with self-preservation than factional ideological purity. Michael O’Brien potential falls within this camp, although I suspect that the idea of “leapfrogging” other Right faction rivals for the Deputy position also were motivations. The left faction will come out of this year’s State Convention feeling emboldened, and the metaphoric and actual bruises born by Rann and Foley will only serve to encourage party disunity and agitation. It will take much more than “rousing” speeches by Malinauskas and “contrite” apologies from Michael Brown to reverse the SA ALP’s breakneck momentum towards oblivion. With a competent and united Brumby Government careening towards defeat, the SA ALP can't afford to spend much longer preoccupied with internal division.

Can’t see the forest for the protestors

Governments have much in common with battle ships. In their glory days, both are usually air tight and impervious to the daily stresses placed upon their hulls. During periods of strength, only the strongest torpedo can breach the sturdy exterior. As they age, however, leaks begin to appear, allowing trickles of water inside. The good ship Rann has now reached the point where there are not enough collective fingers to plug the numerous holes that have transformed the lower cabins into aquatic wonderlands. It has reached a point so dire that the majority of the sailors should be eying the life rafts. Party office, however, believes that a mutiny on the Bounty will suddenly breach the voids. There is ample evidence, however, suggesting that this will not be the case.

Various events throughout the life of the Rann Government have been major causes of disenchantment within the rank and file and the union movement. The WorkCover debate, for example, tore a massive hole in the Governments defenses. The recent budget cuts to public sector entitlements served to accentuate this gaping hole, and if not mended will continue to swamp Rann and Co’s every action for the next three years. The union movement has begun to realize that symbolic protest is no longer effective in influencing key Government decision makers. Their attempt to push for “generational change” at this weeks State Convention is not worth the paper it is written on. Soon they will realize that the need to hit the Government where it hurts; the hip pocket and on the ground volunteers during election campaigns. While the Government is facing damaging leaks from the union movement, the seriousness of this pales in comparison to the leaks emerging within the public service.

While union members to have a seat at the ALP table, and are privy to important information gleaned from party functions and internal party events, their access to information is dwarfed by that available to the public service. Also, while the unions may agitate for change within the party, they are less inclined to leak information capable of sinking the Government. (At the end of the day, it is not in their interests to see a change in Government). The recent Michael O’Brien debacle and the Sustainable Budget Commission leak show the damage that a disenchanted public servant can cause. It is hard to say what the motivations of the individual leakers was, but I am sure the arrogant and bullying attitude of Government members and media team operatives is partly to blame. Slashing the entitlements of those responsible for the day to day operation of the Government is also obviously a factor. A change of leader will have a minimal impact on the relationship between the ALP Government and the public service. It is also doubtful that it will improve internal party stability.

The calls for “generational change” at this weekends ALP State Convention are not merely aimed at removing Rann and Foley. The generation that the unions want to take the reigns is the Weatherill generation, which is entirely different to the Koutsantonis/Rau/Snelling generation. MPs from both sides of the factional divide are using Mike Rann’s “victory lap” to discredit contenders from the other side of the factional divide. Rob Lucas had the following to say recently in Parliament;

One cannot walk the corridors of this place, or take a telephone call, without running into some Labor source wanting to leak damaging information against another government MP, wanting to damage first the Premier or the Treasurer and then the leadership contenders as well. The sources from the left are leaking against the Premier and the Treasurer, and any of the contenders from the right, whether it be Messrs Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau; the sources on the right, of course, are busily trying to undermine and damage the reputation of minister Weatherill.

While Mike Rann, as an unaligned member of the old “Centre Left” has been a foil to factional rivalries, his imminent departure will cause the opening of Pandora’s Box. When Rann does go, his replacement will continue to be plagued by damaging leaks. Forces within the left (and the Union movement) will be unsatisfied with any outcome other than Premier Jay. Even if Jay is appeased by placing him in the Deputy position, it would be in his interests to cause the dethroning of the Premier. If, by some amazing twist of fate, Weatherill does reach the Premiership, the Right wing dirt squad will start working in overtime. The O’Brien/Foley brouhaha this week is evidence that there are even differences of opinion within the Right faction. If there is a way to avoid all out factional guerrilla warfare, I certainly can’t see it.

The gift that keeps on giving

A few months ago when some wily public servant leaked a confidential State budget document outlining potential savings measures, the cynics suggested that said leak was a clever “spin” tactic by the Rann Government. While this may have made some sense in the short term, a Government will never benefit from the public disclosure of such an extensive and explicit costing document, especially in the context of a “horror budget” scenario. The Opposition, by having access to said document, is able to highlight any perceived extravagance that was spared the knife, and contrast it to any number of harsh measures implemented in the previous budget. Even the laziest opposition can do a Mary Poppins and thrust their arm into this bag of tricks and pull out a scandal. The current Puglia debacle engulfing the Premier is an example of such a scandal.

At the outset, let me say that I have no idea how beneficial the Puglia-South Australia trade relationship will be. One thing I can say, however, is no electorate will take kindly to being treated as second fiddle to a bunch of “outsiders”. Why should our taxes be spent on the abstract doodles of some I-talian when you are making me redundant? The Premier has always been a fan of his high-profile “gimmick” policies, such as bro-mance with Lance Armstrong. In a comfortable budgetary environment, such indulgences can be tolerated. As public sector unions quietly sharpen their daggers in darkened rooms, however, publicly funded ego stroking is not on. When you add the ingredients of improper motives to the pot, you have one spicy meatball.

The two biggest scandals to have stricken Mike Rann during his term in office have involved his sexual partners, alleged or otherwise. The factor that transforms the Puglia affair from standard Government wastage to high blown scandal is the fact that the Premier’s wife hails from the region. While I sincerely doubt that Rann was operating under any improper motives, the political judgment made in this policy initiative calls into question whether he has completely lost touch with the community he professes to serve. This will be the question that the faceless men within the party are asking.

Internal ALP figures are undoubtedly united in the view that Rann will not be the leader taking the party to the polls in 2014. The question about who will replace him has been fertile grounds for discussion in this blog in the past and can be summarized by the following; nobody knows and we’d prefer not to think about it for now. They would prefer put off this decision for a year or so, but the current Puglia affair may accelerate their thinking. The Right knows that they won’t support Weatherill. By adopting this stance, the faction is following in the foot steps of the NSW Right, who bypassed the obvious successor (in the public’s mind) and installed Iemma. If this action is taken, it will ensure that the anointed will be saddled with the baggage of their ascension from day 1. This is only the beginning of their problems.

In an environment where there is no clear successor (or the clear successor is ignored), the anointed leader will be bedeviled by a caucus and/or cabinet room rife with ambition. By promoting mediocrity, you encourage the mediocre. For example, if the Right appoints John Rau as leader, any number of cabinet members would feel that they are equally as capable. Ensuring unity and loyalty will be difficult, especially if the new leader is struggling. Loyalty from Weatherill can only be achieved by appeasing him with a deputy position, which places him one step away from the throne. The complexity of life after Rann is the very reason why the faceless men don’t want to act yet. Continuing to allow Mike to rot from the end of a rope tethered to the lamp post, however, may cause such a stench that even the freshest smelling leader won’t be able to clear the air.

Debating about debating

Karl Bitar, National Secretary of the ALP, today gave a woeful account of the ALP’s woeful 2010 election campaign to the National Press club. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explore every flaw in Bitar’s logic, so I will focus my ire upon one particular failing that he admitted that the ALP suffers from; a lack of internal debate within the ALP. Both Bitar and Howes have tried to link the lack of debate within the party to the tyrannical reign of King Rudd. While Rudd was undoubtedly a control freak, the lack of debate within the party’s root cause is structural.

When examining the structure of the ALP, there are theoretically a multitude of opportunities for robust and lively debate on policy issues. There are sub-branch meetings, State Council and State Executive meetings and an annual conference. As an attendee at these meetings, however, I can assure you that they are plagued by the rhetorical equivalent of tumbleweed. Debate never occurs, because all involved are aware that somewhere in a dark back room, the decision has already been made.

The skill of oration has always been a fundamental talent required to succeed in politics. It is a skill developed through a rigorous trial by fire, with the speaker endeavouring to persuade the sceptical. Not even history’s greatest orators such as Malcolm X or JFK would be capable of swaying an ALP State Conference, however. The vast majority of delegates at State Conference have allegiances to one of the major factions, with a clear expectation that all will toe the factional line on a given issue. Every issue on the conference agenda has been discussed and decided prior to the first speech taking place. This all encompassing power, exercised largely by a handful of Union officials, drains the fire from the bellies of all delegates. The power exercised by the union extends not only to the voting decisions of delegates, but also to who will speak on a motion.

State conferences are designed to be forums in which the “rising stars” of the particular faction are groomed in preparation for their ascent to Parliament. As Cavalier stated in Power Crisis, promotion within the factions and the union is determined largely by loyalty rather than talent. For this reason, those selected to speak at Conference are not necessarily the most skilled orators but rather the lobotomised, faithful work horse. As delegates listen to the spluttering and clichés of the chosen few, their eyes begin to roll back into the back of their head. The merits of the arguments advanced are never questioned, for the only delegates with the gumption to rebut or speak against a factional acolyte are the crazy bearded lefties, remnants of an age passed.

Re-invigorating the ALP and instilling a spirit of debate is not possible within the current party structure. The power to control outcomes and groom the next generation of clones is too valuable for the unions to throw away. If there ever was a debate on the restructuring of the power within the ALP, the outcome would be pre-determined and the speakers pre-selected. Reform, I fear, will only be possible when the party is in such disarray that the power being fought for is no longer sought after.

Strange Bedfellows

When Joe Public visits their nearest Borders to purchase the latest celebrity chef cook book and a mochachino, they will be greeted by shelf upon shelf of political commentary spawned from the 2010 election result. The outpouring of commentary is unprecedented, especially given that this year’s poll was universally considered to be banal and bland. Much of the commentary emerging from the press gallery can be explained by the emergence of the Greens, the knifing of Rudd and the “new paradigm”. Of more interest is the entering into the fray by active political operatives, such as Paul Howes.

The 2010 Australian election will be viewed as historically significant for a number of reasons; hung parliament, ALP leadership, rise of the Greens. The rise of the Greens, however, has been at the expense of the ALP, and this fact could be the most significant trend to emerge from the poll. The period between now and the next election (whenever that may be) should be viewed as a fight for the future of the “left wing vote”. The message sent to the ALP by those in the trendy inner city electorates is one that has been heard loud and clearly by the wiser heads within the party. They realise that they must act during this window of opportunity before the left vote is lost forever. The challenge for people like Howes, parasites reliant upon the health of their host to survive, is convincing the lumbering beast that they are headed towards the cliff.

The recent Road to Damascus conversion of Howes and Arbib to the cause of gay marriage has been a curious occurrence. Cynics would suggest that this change of heart was not dictated by some fundamental change of beliefs. To succeed in the modern ALP, factional warriors such as Arbib and Howe have learnt that survival is much more important than strength of belief. They realise that if they continue to be outflanked by the Greens on important social issues such as gay marriage, those that switched allegiances for the first time in 2010 may be lost forever in 2014. The structure of the ALP, however, is not equipped to react to these realities.

The Right faction of the ALP, which Arbib and Howes are a part, may be devoid of beliefs in many policy areas, but gay marriage is certainly not one of them. Within the power broking positions of the Right there exist two distinct classes of people; win-at-all costs careerists and devout Catholics. The Catholics have lost the abortion battle, and they will be damned if they will roll over on gay marriage. The gay marriage issue is a perfect example of the flaws of ALP’s structure in reflecting the prevailing sentiment of their traditional voters. By obtaining control of a few unrepresentative unions, a few Catholics can veto policy initiatives that have overwhelming public support. I challenge the Shop Assistant’s union to poll their employees on the question of gay marriage.

Any debate about the future direction of the ALP will be futile unless it addresses the fundamental failing of the party structure. Even if Arbib and Howe do achieve a change to party policy on gay marriage (highly unlikely, and will only occur over lengthy and bloody battle) the party will continue to be behind public sentiment until there is reform which ensures that decisions are in the hands of a representative majority, not an unrepresentative few. By vesting ultimate power in the hands of the trade union movement, a movement with limited relevance to modern society controlled by careerists with no connection to the community, the ALP will continue its descent into mediocrity.

Generation Why?

This week has AWU knuckle dragger Wayne Hanson has called for the replacement of the Rann-Foley leadership team as part of generational change within the SA ALP. This is quite ironic given that Hanson is a throwback to the style of union leader of bygone eras. For once, however, I tend to agree with him. Since this years election victory, Rann and Foley have staggered from one bad news story to the next. The problem facing the ALP is the generation waiting to replace the Rann generation is vastly inferior.

Normally in the wake of an election victory, the returning Government is given a significant bounce, while the opposition internally blood lets and licks its wounds. In the case of the Rann Government, its third term has been an unyielding tale of woe from the outset. It started with Rann’s acerbic election night speech, through the Family First how to vote card saga, the Foley Adelaide Oval debacle and ends up at the Parks Community centre balls up. The future looks bleak, with public sector unions clinking their sabres at the Government’s gates. What is the reason behind the Rann Government’s terrible failure?

Following the proverbial kick up the pants given to ALP in this years election, Rann came out issuing an order for his troops to “reconnect with the community”. Such a directive is meaningless when the personnel are incapable of achieving such measures. Many within the Government have grown so fat, lazy and arrogant that all hope is lost. Michael O’Brien, known at POTUS (President of the United States) within the Right faction because of his over inflated sense of his own importance, is a perfect example. Instead of doorknocking his Northern suburbs electorate, he sent a senior adviser out in the Ministerial car to do it for him. O’Brien is a perfect example of why MPs should be required to live in their electorates for a designated period of time. Flawed preselection processes over a generation have resulted in an emerging generation of MPs ill-equipped to take the reigns from Rann.

The Rann Government could now be classified as an old dog, incapable of learning new tricks despite the clear need to do so. Matters are only going to get worse. Largesse amongst some Ministers, such as Minister Michael Wright, went relatively unnoticed in previous terms. In light of such a harsh cost cutting budget, however, every extravagant lunch or overseas trip will take on increasing importance. The public will ask why a six person junket to New York (amongst other places) totalling $90,000 was required, particularly when the previous police Minister (who’s adviser is COS), already took the trip. Every cabinet reshuffle should not justify a duplication of the previous Minister’s sojourns. It is likely that the Rann Government will suffer numerous blows via FOI throughout the coming term.

So desperate is the Rann Government to achieve a good news story, they are apparently considering the establishment of an ICAC. Their reasoning behind this decision is deeply flawed, and assumes that the numerous skeletons within the Government’s closet are less damaging than the continuing refusal to create ICAC. I assert this is not the case. The Government has much to fear in the following areas; involvement of development lobbyists in Government decision making; inappropriate appointments to paid Government positions; inappropriate use of Ministerial and or MP allowances/priviledges. It is conceivable that a number of scandals could rock the Government. Perhaps they will announce the establishment of the ICAC, to commence in 2015. Such a strategy would be greeted with the appropriate degree of cynicism.

The reasons behind the Rann Government’s unpopularity are deeply entrenched within the party and the Parliament. A change of attitude is not possible without a wide spread change of personnel. Unfortunately, however, the lack of foresight and principals of factional leaders has resulted in a talent and brain drain likely to curse the party for a generation at the least. Even if someone like Weatherill does manage to take the helm, he will be in charge of a leaky and decrepit old ship.

The Caterpillar Effect

Julia Gillard this week has publically acknowledged a phenomenon that the voting public was already aware of; the Prime Minister Julia Gillard is not the same as the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I first noticed this phenomenon when observing the transition of Mark Latham from Sussex Street arm breaker to Opposition Leader in 2004, and have now termed it that caterpillar effect. This blog will try to examine why beautifully colourful political butterflies enter into a cocoon (or in this case caucus) and emerge as bland leadership caterpillars, shedding all that made them unique in the process.
Julia Gillard has admitted that she has been fake during the 2010 campaign and, in the style of Eminem, has said that the “real Julia” will now stand up. Before examination of the reasons for her “fake campaign”, I will take issue with her “real Julia” assertion. While the Julia that we will now see on the campaign trail may be more real than version 1.0, it is unlikely she has been the “real Julia Gillard” since leaving high school. Why? Because in order to reach the lofty position of Deputy PM in an ALP Government, Julia had to mould the pimply 17 year old “real Julia” into a form capable of achieving within the left faction of the Labor Party, the ALP in general and the Australian political system as a whole.
Young aspiring politicians are always quick to observe and understand the requisites for achieving success within their respective political parties. In the ALP, for example, the clear pathway is University Politics (part time union employment), Union Official or IR lawyer, political adviser, political candidate. While it is perhaps possible that Julia coincidentally chose this path for herself, it is more likely that she deliberately engaged on that path with her current end in mind. During her rise in the Left of the party, she would have inevitably played upon her working class roots, exaggerating them when required. Her training as a lawyer and student politician ensured she was well versed in providing ambiguous answers to questions. By the time she reached Parliament, she was no longer “real” in a traditional sense, because pure reality is not the path to success within a political party. Politics, and success in internal politics, is all about doing and saying what those above want you to hear.
Having said all this about the transformation of Julia from Unley High girl to Deputy PM, her public persona was indeed more down-to-earth than the standard politician. Having met her on a few occasions, I always found her warm and engaging. PM Julia Gillard is a totally different story. ( I will preface this by saying I was opposed to the manner in which she took the leadership) Having said that, I was still totally willing to give her leadership a try. Unfortunately, her entire public persona (encompassing policy decisions, tone of voice, willingness to take risks) has been such a departure from previous perceptions that the campaign thus far has been a complete and utter failure. This is very similar to how I felt about the Latham leadership episode.
As a young and idealistic ALP hack, I was a massive supporter of Mark Latham. His humour, risk taking and acid tongue was invigorating compared to the staid approaches of Crean and Beazley. I remember he was guest speaker at the launch of Senator Linda Kirk’s website. Upon seeing a picture of Linda walking along the beach, Latham yelled out “where’s the pics of you in a bikini? Natasha has them”. Admittedly, this kind of behaviour would never cut it as a leader of the party, or the public. Latham’s leadership, however, was a clear example of the clamps being placed upon the personality of the leader by national secretariat. While Latham’s leadership was flawed in more ways than this, it was a stark and obvious example of the discipline expected by Nat Sec.
Before discussing the leadership of Rudd and Gillard under Nat Sec constraints, I should explain the mentality adopted by the “backroom” of the ALP. The NSW right, and the right of the ALP in general, believes that it has developed a fool proof “formula” to winning elections. They believe that through focussed examination of demographics and statistics, policies and election strategies can be developed to ensure victory in the key marginal seats. For example, Latham’s forestry policy was flawed because of the number of timber workers in key marginal seats in Tasmania. Policy development is now almost entirely constrained by the impact these policies will have according to statistical data. The NSW right posit that by developing the correct policies according to data, and then using resources to flood the correct electorates, election victory is almost guaranteed. All the leaders need to do is follow the script. Therein lies the problem.
Kevin Rudd’s success in the 2007 was largely put down to his ability to stay “on message” and “follow the script”. Nat Sec would have intensely drummed this fact into Gillard upon taking the leadership. Rudd, however, was a completely different style of leader to Gillard. Even before taking the leadership, Rudd was always systematic, scripted and lacking in emotion. His transition to leadership, therefore was seamless. The only thing that changed was the scriptwriter. While this discipline was lauded during the election campaign, Rudd’s inability to engage the public and step away from the script was his major problem during his term as PM. Which brings us to the present day; Gillard is now steering a ship designed to carry a different captain. She has now come to the realisation that the approach mapped out by Nat Sec is inappropriate and ineffective. The question is, now is it too late?
Election campaigns aren’t planned overnight. They are often years in the making, and where most effective they should be tailored to the leadership style of the leader. The NSW right belief that their “formula” will work in all circumstances, irrespective of the leader, is blatantly false, as evidenced by the electoral fortunes of the NSW Government. The ALP was in safer waters embarking on an election campaign with a known quantity in Kevin Rudd, instead of plunging neck deep with Gillard without the time to develop a proper way to navigate the voyage. Now, I fear, the ALP is lost at sea.

What's Left?

Much has been said about the shift to the right of the two major parties over the past few decades. This has been particularly evident in the current election campaign, with Gillard and Abbott trying to out-Pauline Hanson each other on border protection. One of the major arguments for this eventuality is that the majority of the domestic “leftie issues” were fought for and won during the 60s and 70s. While racial and sexual minorities and women still face inequalities in society, overt discrimination has been legislated against in most cases. The only issues that mass numbers (I am talking hundreds of thousands) are willing to march in the street for now are the environment, international conflict and industrial relations. The Liberal party has always had right wing views on these issues. With the Work Choices election still fresh in the memory, it is unlikely that they will risk taking on the unions again. The might of the unions, however, is behind the ALP’s shift to the right in recent years.

The predominant left wing issue of the day is the environment, as evidenced by the rise of the Greens and the backlash against Rudd’s ETS back flip. The ALP has a fundamental conflict of interest when dealing with environmental issues; the biggest donors to the party, and the controllers of party convention are the trade unions. Some of the biggest trade unions in the party (and the most militant) represent workers in industries that rape and pillage the environment. The role of unions (apart from being incubators for fat, brainwashed yes men), is to protect the jobs of their members at all costs. While this is a noble cause, it often results in the militant protection of current workers, which is potentially detrimental to the plight of future workers, who may or may not be members of the particular union.

My brother is an employee in the motor trades industry, represented by the AMWU. This industry is not an industry that Australia should be pursuing into the next century, because emerging nations can manufacture at a much lower cost than we can. It would be wiser as a policy for the nation to re-train people such as my brother in industries that will flourish in the future e.g. renewable energy. While the AMWU is dying a slow death as a union, it still wields some clout. It is for this reason that ALP Governments pump cash into propping up failing car manufacturers instead of making tough decisions for the future. Why? Because future workers don’t have mortgages or mouths to feed. I am not saying that the job unions do is bad. What I am saying is that their main objective directly conflicts with the responsible and visionary development of policy for the benefit of future Australians.

Back in my days at ALP State Conventions, I would always see the bearded lefties (I am now one them, but I wasn’t then) standing up debating human rights in Zimbabwe or gay marriage. Every now and then, however, you would see the same lefties fervently arguing against the traditional “left wing” view, because they worked in the foundry that was polluting the environment. It was always amusing, I thought, that they were left wing on all occasions except when the issue impacted on their lives. A classic example of this is the CFMEU’s raucous welcome of John Howard during the 2004 election campaign, because Mark Latham had audaciously decided to protect the Tasmanian forests. The SA office of the CFMEU once housed a massive picture of Soviet revolutionary Lenin. Therein lies the ALP’s dilemma. While most unions promote left wing ideologies, this ideology does not extend to environmental issues that will cost their members jobs. This fact is one reason for the ALP’s shift to the “right” in the overall scheme of things.
Another obvious reason for the shift to the right of the ALP is obviously the influence wielded by the Catholic right faction within the party. While most of this faction consists of unions with non-environmental impacted employees (apart from the AWU), this faction is conservative on Catholic belief issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research etc. The ALP, therefore, has unions opposed to progressive environmental change on their left flank, and unions opposed to progressive social change on its right. The union oriented structure of the party has imposed a right wing policy straight jacket. There are two more issues to discuss, racism and war.

The ALP has been a racist political party for much longer than it has been a tolerant party. Up until the late 60s, the ALP was still in favour of the White Australia policy. Arthur Calwell, former ALP leader, was famously quoted as saying “too Wongs don’t make a white”. I am not sure if Penny has a sister. The Whitlam, Keating, Hawke and Rudd eras were marked by a tolerant racial attitude, but this only consists of 40 years. Now Gillard has returned to the familiar fear mongering of floods of immigrants, as used by generations of pre Whitlam ALP leaders. While race and environmental issues have been traditionally classified as “left” issues, the ALP has not always adopted progressive views on these matters.

Protests against war are always inevitable. While some wars, such as Vietnam, advanced a right wing agenda, other wars such as World War 2 dealt with the very survival of Australia as a nation. The ALP is more left wing in its attitude towards armed conflict than the Liberal party, but both are wedded to the ANZUS alliance. I generally agree with this approach, apart from during the Bush presidency. No major party could adopt a radical left wing on national security and remain in office.

While it has been argued that no left wing issues remain, and this is the cause of the shift in party ideology, this is not the case. The main reason is that the trade unions, responsible for the operation of the ALP, favour stability and certainty when it comes to their workforce. My view of being “left wing” is being in favour of new and progressive approaches to social problems, rather than upholding the social norm. Society will always have problems. It could be argued that the environmental problems facing the world now are the greatest challenges of all time. The ALP will not be able to adapt effectively and respond to these problems unless the union movement starts to move forward in its thinking.

Fighting the battle of who could care less

The 2010 Australian Federal election campaign could be described by paraphrasing Winston Churchill; never has something so important meant so little to so many. In all my years involved in or observing election campaigns, I have never seen such a policy announcement vacuum. In a world facing some of the most difficult and pressing challenges in human history, both the Liberal and ALP leaders are pushing to for Australians to “take a breath” and be content with keeping things as they are. It is as though Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott have moved to that planet in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy; you know the one where if you have an original idea, you are smacked in the face with a shovel. In this blog, I will explore the reasons behind this most mundane election campaign.

One of the key election battle grounds this time around has been economic management, which is not surprising given the Global Economic Crisis that engulfed the world in recent years. With Australians digging money holes in their back yards, Whitlamesque policy announcements are not to be expected by either side. While wads of cash are not required for all types of policy (what would gay marriage cost?), it sure helps. This is one of the main reasons we are seeing a miserly election campaign so far. Liberals are always in favour of cuts and economic conservatism. For the ALP, they are forced to play the same game because of the events of the past three years.

While the Kevin 07 ALP was able to convince the public of it’s fiscal rectitude, the Keynesian largesse of the recent term of Government has potentially spoiled this line of attack for the Labor party. The job for the ALP is to neutralise this issue by avoiding any major, expensive policy announcements and linking the Liberal parties economic strategy to Industrial Relations reforms. This brings us to another reason for the boredom of this 2010 campaign. The ALP and the union movement are relying on the spectre of WorkChoices to return them to Government, despite constant and desperate repudiations of the policy by Tony Abbott. This approach may be successful to some degree in this election campaign, but woe betide the ALP if they think this is a fail safe strategy for ever.

Electorates tend to have very short memories. They care about what is impacting upon them now, not what harmed them in the past. Look at the SA ALP’s election result following their disastrous State Bank election annihilation. The SA Liberals still try to use the spectre of the State Bank on occasion, but the electorate moved on quite quickly. The SA ALP was helped by the fact that Mike Rann was only a junior Minister in the Bannon Government. Abbott, however, is still linked to the Howard team, as is Joe Hockey. Under a Turnbull leadership, the WorkChoices line would not cut mustard. Unfortunately, under Abbott, we will be subjected to arguments about the past instead of policies for the future.

A final potential reason for the stark policy vacuum is the instability of leadership of both parties over the past election cycle. Gillard, in her three week Prime Ministership has spent the majority of the time rolling back or repudiating Ruddisms. Given that the majority of policy development by the ALP would have occurred over the past year under Rudd’s watch, it is possible that the contents of the policy war chest are all unappealing to the new Gillard team. It is also possible that Rudd, because of his domineering management style, ordered that all policy development go through him, rather than delegating it to the Ministers. As a consequence of his chop, all policy may have been chopped as well. For this reason, we are getting bizarre pronouncements by Gillard, such as we are developing an Global Warming strategy, but we will reveal it after the election. When has this ever been acceptable?

Abbott, on the other hand, is the third Liberal leader in the Rudd/Gillard era. Such instability, combined with the inferior resources of Opposition for policy development and the Libs penchant for budget cuts is the explanation for their boring campaign. Abbott has, however, announced the biggest paid maternity scheme ever proposed and massive increases in mental health spending. The unilateral nature of his parental scheme announcement, however, would have resulted in a major wing clipping of the Opposition leader. He would be loathe to embark on any more reckless of the cuff billion dollar pledges.

Well there we have it folks. Normally elections have a centrepiece e.g. a city stadium versus a hospital, reform of workplace laws etc. This time around, however, it is highly likely that the centrepiece will fortress Australia. Both parties are adopting the Pompeii approach, content with keeping the nation frozen as it is, ostrich necking the global challenges which we face. No amount of talk about moving forward will actually result in any momentum in that direction/

Seats of Power

While observing State Parliament question time on A-Pac (I used my Foxtel IQ and fast forwarded the Dorothy Dixes), a few things were quite apparent to me. Firstly, as I watched Kevin Foley nervously fiddling with his pen like a naughty school boy while answering a question, it was clearly apparent that he is a dead man walking. I had never seen the Treasurer show such apparent weakness and loss of direction. While he had regained his bluster by the third sitting day, the Opposition, and more importantly his own front bench, could sniff the blood in the water. It is clear that some time this year, probably following the Federal election and State budget, Foley will be tapped on the shoulder. Possible replacements include fellow front benchers Tom Koutsantonis or Jay Weatherill. The second observation I made concerned the seating arrangements of the various frontbenchers.

A curious observation that I made regarded the seating arrangements of the ALP’s Ministers, particularly the Attorney General John Rau. The portfolio of Attorney General is traditionally one of the most senior positions in any Government. At the very least, it deserves a position on the front row of the Government bench. Rau, however, is tucked away in the corner in between junior Ministers Grace Portolesi and Jack Snelling. Upon further examination, I determined that the only possible explanation for the seating arrangements was based on length of service in the Cabinet. This seems highly unconventional, and I believe is designed to prevent the perception that Rau was now within grasp of the top job. It could also suggest that Rann, Foley, Hill and Conlon didn’t want anyone else infiltrating their clique. Whatever the reason, the seating arrangements do not send the message of a united Government.

A few seats closer to the Premier sits Tom Koutsantonis. Having left working in political offices prior to Kouts’s appointment, this was my first real opportunity to see him in action. What I saw was the same old head kicker trying desperately to adapt his ridiculing, berating, wise cracking style to the functions of a Minister. During a DD, Kouts was interrupted by three points of order, which is possibly a first. DD’s are traditionally boring drones about Government achievements, primarily designed to suck up air time to limit the number of Opposition questions. Kouts however, couldn’t stick to his script, but rather attempted to engage in mudslinging and belittling of Opposition members. Foley, Conlon, Rann and Atkinson are masters of destroying the Opposition during question time, but there is an art to doing it successfully. Koutsantonis’s feeble effort showed that he is not yet ready for elevation to higher posts, although I sense he would disagree with this assertion.

Another Minister that is being groomed for big things is Jack Snelling. Jack is one of the nicest members of the Government. We have had many great conversations about the merits of home brewing. While Jack responded to both DD’s and questions without notice in a dignified and professional manner, it is clear that he is still finding his feet in his new role. I suspect that when Kevin Foley is tapped on the shoulder in coming months, this will trigger a ballot for the leadership. While Jack is spoken about within Labor circles as a future Premier, I don’t personally think that he will be ready for this role in the next 6 months. I will be keeping my eyes on Kouts and Jack over the next few months, as would the ALP backbench. If they fail to make considerable strides during this time, ugly ducklings Rau and Weatherill may become leadership swans.

The Adelaide Oval Blues

While Kevin Rudd is definitely having the worst week in politics ever, South Australian Treasurer Kevin Foley would have to be running a very close second. The entire Adelaide Oval debate is becoming a debacle for the Government, and big Kev in particular. Former Federal opposition leader Mark Latham was today quoted as saying (with regards to the National Schools program) “who would have thought you could throw money at schools and actually lose votes”. This same logic could be translated to the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. This project was meant to be a no brainer vote winner, just like the Marj. While the inability to sell major infrastructure projects is a flaw of the entire Rann Government, a significant proportion of blame over Adelaide Oval must be heaped on the Treasurer. Is Foley getting weary from 10 years in Government, or are there other forces at play.
Late last year, Kevin Foley featured in a puff piece in the Saturday Advertiser, which appeared to be designed at softening his image in order to make a tilt at the leadership. Swift on that article’s heels was Mr Foley’s revelation that he had been diagnosed with depression. Following that revelation, my initial reaction was that the second most senior (and therefore stressful) political post in the state is no place for a person who is battling their personal demons. I say this not out of ill-will towards the Treasurer, but as a person who understands depression and the consequences associated its treatment. The most sensible route for Mr Foley to take would have been to temporarily resign from the front bench so as to allow the full and proper treatment of his illness, and then return to his position when his illness was under control. The looming election, political reality and Foley’s “she’ll be right” attitude all conspired to ensure that this course of action was not pursued. It is my contention that his failure to adopt this course of action has possibly been one of the major reasons for his current circumstances.
When Mr Foley announced that he had depression, he did not specify the exact condition that he was diagnosed with, but he did rule out bipolar and manic depression. Irrespective of the nature of his condition, the main forms of treatment for depressive illness are a combination of cognitive therapy (lying on a couch talking over your problems) and medication. Mr Foley has admitted that he has been taking medication for many years. While these medications do vary in many ways, they do have some common shared side effects which could be impacting on Mr Foley’s professional life.
One of the major side effects of anti-depressants is sudden weight gain or weight loss. While Mr Foley has had yo-yoing weights over the years, his current physical appearance is in stark contrast to previous weight blow outs. Another side effect common with all anti-depressants is a “haziness of thinking”, which may or may not include memory lapses. While these side effects do not apply forever, and they may not occur in every case, they do take some time to adjust to during initial stages of treatment. This could perhaps account for his lapse during the infamous meeting with Leigh Whicker, although the stress of the election etc could also be factors. A third side effect of anti-depressants is that they do not react well with the consumption of alcohol. Even just a few drinks can cause strong reactions with the medication. The boozy political lifestyle, particularly amongst the Right of the party, is a difficult environment in which to limit one’s alcoholic intake. Someone with Mr Foley’s bravado would find such drastic lifestyle changes very difficult to achieve within his current circumstances.
The political spotlight is a harsh and unforgiving environment. The suffering of depression is not and should not be a reason to discriminate against any person within that environment. There is a difference, however, between a sufferer of depression that has successfully undergone a treatment program and brought their condition under control compared to a person who is still in the midst of their suffering. No other employer in the world would expect their employee to battle this illness while still undertaking their full responsibilities. It is bad for the worker and the business. Mr Foley needs to prioritise his health as his number one concern instead of trying to soldier on as though everything is normal.

The Empire Strikes Back

Well it has been a historic day in Federal politics, or should I say infamous? Kevin Rudd’s political execution this morning stems directly from his unwillingness to play the factional game. While the factional war lords are claiming that his demise was due to his unpopularity in the opinion polls, the truth is they were baying for his blood from the very start. I remember a conversation with SA State Secretary Michael Brown soon after the 2007 election when he bemoaned the leadership of Kevin Rudd, and said something very similar to we need to get rid of him. So why were the factions so anti-Rudd from the beginning, and what does it mean for Julia Gillard?

Kevin Rudd was always an unlikely candidate for Prime Minister. It must be remembered that he came to power while the Federal ALP was in disarray, and it looked like John Howard would die in office some time around 2050. The absence of leadership material meant that Rudd, a factional outsider, was able to make it to the top job. Rudd’s amazing victory in 2007 stifled the leadership ambitions of Right wing “superstar” Bill Shorten. A long and prosperous Rudd era, followed by a seamless Gillard transition would stifle Shorten’s prime ministerial hopes indefinitely. Combined with his unwillingness to bow to factional demands regarding Cabinet positions and policy choices, Kevin was dead man walking from the very start.

The only thing keeping Rudd alive over the past four years was his popularity in the opinion polls. His leadership was similar to the movie Speed. As long as he kept approval above 50 %, he could continue leading. As soon as it dipped below 50 (and it did after ETS back flip, which was instigated by the NSW right), the knives came out. Granted, the did give him a few months to turn things around, but I suspect his was more Gillard’s hesitancy rather than Right wing lenience. Nothing sets of a leadership spill quicker than a disastrous by-election. Right wing power brokers sure have some gall using the Paramatta result to axe Rudd, however.

The weekend by-election result in NSW showed a 25% swing against the ALP. This was a State election, and much of this swing was a reaction AGAINST the constant execution of NSW Premiers by the Right faction. Not even Prime Minister Jesus Christ would have been able to turn the tide of this swing (maybe Moses is a better Biblical reference?). The NSW Government is the house that Arbib and the Right faction built. Using this as a justification to knife the PM is laughable. If anything, the NSW result shows what happens when the Right faction runs rampant. I am sure they are offering Julia some blonde hair die and a framed picture of the Virgin Mary as we speak. Therein lies Julia’s problem.

Julia Gillard was always destined to become leader of the Federal ALP at some point. Given this fact, the only question was which road she was going to take to that destination. Unfortunately for her, she has made a deal with the devil/s; Arbib and the un-wise men. Because of this ascension route, she faces only two possible futures. She can go against the Rudd model and bow to the Right every time they walk into her office demanding favours OR she can govern in the style that she sees fit, and face a similar fate to Rudd as soon as popularity begins to wane. My prediction is we will see a revolving door of PM’s over the next five years. The infection flowing through the veins of the NSW ALP has spread nationally. God help us all.

Should I stay or should I go now?

Yesterday’s Advertiser contained an article speculating about the imminent retirement of up to 14 ALP MPs throughout the coming term of Government, including big names such as Hill, Foley, Rann and Atkinson. Curiously, since the articles publication several of those named have come out to dispute those claims. Given this fact, one must ask where this article came from, at what were the motivations behind it?

South Australia’s mainstream political press is the antithesis of the Woodward and Bernstein investigative journalism. Kelton et al are highly unlikely to publish anything unless it is served to them on a silver platter via media release or confidential informant. For this reason, it is highly likely that the origins of this story emanate from somewhere within ALP head office on Gilles Street. Michael Brown was obviously aware of the story, and his quote was in favour of the concept of rejuvenation. Left faction counterpart Kyam Maher was also named in the story. The purpose of the story, therefore, was for the new guard to bluntly signal to the old guard that their time is almost up, and the wolves are at the door. Today’s puff piece about the former Attorney General and his garden, however, shows that the old guard isn’t willing to give in without a fight.

Following the Rann Government’s recent election victory, I heard whispers that some within the new guard of the ALP were a little disappointed by the result, as it would further delay their ascent into Parliament. It is possible that given the recent Weatherill leadership debacle and Pat Conlon’s defection from the left, the Right faction feels that it is now in a position to dictate terms in any pre-selection battle. The battlegrounds will be drawn over seats where there is dispute over the factional “ownership”. For example, Ramsay and Kaurna are both held by MPs that are factionally unaligned. Torrens and Lee are held by members of the Right, but when they were pre-selected they were members of the Left. The pre-selection of Bernard Finnigan (to replace Left aligned Terry Roberts) and Lee Odenwalder for Little Para (now member of the Right) instead of Kyam Maher has shown that the Right has no qualms in asserting its ascendancy in overruling conventions. It is my feeling that merry hell will break loose amongst the factions during the next round of pre-selections, although given the dominance of the Right, the battle may be swift and brutal.

With 14 MPs possibly facing the factional broom, it must be asked, who will be selected to replace them. It is certain that Tung Ngo will be elevated to the Upper House, which is a move that should be universally celebrated. Tung is a tireless worker and a worthy representative of the Vietnamese community and the community as a whole. Stephen Mullighan, Foley COS is a likely candidate as well, and it is rumoured that he is eying the seat of Lee, held by Michael Wright. Mullighan is an astute thinker, easy on the eye with photogenic smile, and above all else, he has endured a lengthy stint as Foley’s whipping boy. Michael Brown certainly has his eyes firmly fixed on an Upper House seat, but it may be the case that party figures do not think he has done his time in the State Secretary role yet. There is little doubt that he will be perched in the Upper House at some point, barring any scandal. Logic would suggest that Peter Malinauskas will be holding the reigns at the SDA for the foreseeable future, but given his impetuous nature, he may throw his hat into the ring if the seat is right. (or pre-select one of his siblings). Those listed above are ‘”locks”; we will be seeing them in Parliament soon. Beyond that, I have no further information at this stage. SDA employees such as Aemon Bourke and “Guy Smiley” Josh Peak are classified as “golden boys” and are certainly possibilities. Legal head honcho Donald Blairs would make a worthy MP Ministerial offices are also fertile recruiting grounds. At this stage, however, there is no point speculating.

Amongst the Left, the two certainties are Kyam Maher and Matt Pinnegar. Kyam has been stooged in his attempts before, but the sparseness of talent within the Left suggests that he will become an MP at some point. Pinnegar is Pat Conlon’s protégé, and so Porky Pig’s recent defection from the left may have some implications, but probably not enough to prevent his ascent. Left wing union officials are also likely candidates, including Katrine Hildeyard from the ASU, Joe Szacacs (I can never spell) from the UFU and maybe Justin Hanson from the AWU (if his father had his way). My knowledge of the left faction being minimal, all these suggestions could be completely wrong.

While there is certainly an army of willing candidates knocking on the doors to Parliament, some incumbent members will need to blasted from their seats. Atkinson, for example, seems like he is in for the long haul. Any attempts to remove him will cause conflict within the Right faction. Who knows when the first shot will be fired? I suspect it will all depend upon the outcome of a privileges committee hearing into the actions of our Treasurer.

Foley’s final showdown

The last two years in South Australian politics has been littered with political scandals of various degrees. There was the Turbo Tom “hoongate” affair, the internet censorship policy debacle and of course the infamous Chantelois affair. Despite the sensational nature of some of these scandals, the Liberal Opposition has been thus far unable to claim any political scalps. The current Foley incident differs from all the previous scandals in a significant way; this is the first time that Parliament has been misled. While the Rann Government has proven adept at riding out storms, no amount of spin will be able to save Big Kev if a Privileges Committee is established. The question to be asked is, how did the Government’s most capable Parliamentary performer ensnare himself in the most fatal of political traps?

Kevin Foley is feeding the media the innocent line of “anyone can make mistakes”, but it must be understood that while some mistakes are forgivable, misleading Parliament is not one of them. I once worked for probably the most cautious Minister in all of Government, Minister Michael Wright. Wrighty was always so careful that he would not say a word in Parliament that has not been written down, triple checked and cross referenced by his advisers. While this approach meant that he was not the most entertaining Minister to watch, he was always ensuring that his ass was protected against those looking to shove the proverbial pineapple. Foley’s mistake, I believe, stemmed from a variety of causes.

Kevin Foley in full flight during question time is a sight to behold. His ability to ad-lib, insult, belittle and perform in general is legendary. His tendency to depart from the script, however, is one reason why he has landed in his current circumstance. It is not the sole reason for his downfall, however. Foley has not survived for the last ten years by pure chance. His advisers, aware of his tendencies, have always been on guard, ensuring that the big man was reigned in before over stepping the mark. Advisers, armed with a pen and paper, have often done the mad dash to the floor of the House with scribbled missives seeking a change of tack, or a correction of statement. So while Foley was in blame in part, the ultimate cross must be borne by his advisers.

Much has changed in Foley’s office since the infamous February 19th meeting. While Foley’s Chief of Staff remains the same, much of the adviser team has been replaced. I am not certain which adviser was in attendance during the Feb 19th meeting, but there is every possibility that whoever it was is no longer working for the Treasurer. The misleading of Parliament has been blamed on a “memory lapse”. What should be remembered, however, is that while Ministers of the Crown are inundated with a torrent of information, they have a collective memory; their Ministerial staff. A failure to write down such an important piece of information, file it, enter it into the database etc. is unforgivable. I suggest, however, that the information proffered by Leigh Whicker was information that Foley and the ALP campaign team did not want to hear.

It must be remembered that February 19 was smack bang in the middle of election campaign season. An announcement of a cost blow out would have been a political cancer. In legal parlance, there is an expression known as “wilful blindness”. I suspect that Foley didn’t see the cost blow out, because he didn’t want to see it. Unfortunately for him, and the Government, he was so successful in blocking this from his mind that he has landed himself in the current dilemma. He is now a dead man walking, waiting for the Upper House to drop the guillotine.

The misleading of Parliament is the first nail in Foley’s coffin. The second nail is the return of Iain Evans and Rob Lucas to the front bench. Have no doubt, Lucas and Evans are nasty, vindictive pieces of work. Having said that, they are a key asset to the Opposition in the current situation. I believe that if this duo were in charge during the Koutsantonis debacle, Turbo Tom would be on the backbench rather than barking orders to DTED. The situation is worsened by Mike Rann’s sojourn overseas. The final nail in the coffin is the frosty relationship faced by the Government in the Upper House, with Family First MPs still seething over the how-to-vote debacle. Foley’s arrogance and bullying nature would have earned him no friends amongst the minor parties. (I believe Mark Parnell witnessed a drunken Foley abusing Xenophon during that infamous incident). My money is on the establishment of a Privileges Committee by the Upper House, followed by the resignation of the Treasurer. In my next blog, I will discuss the can of worms that will be opened when the party struggles with Foley’s replacement.

We would prefer neither

The latest Federal opinion poll showing a surge in support for the Greens to 16 percent and an abandonment of the major parties demonstrates a growing disenchantment in the two party system. Voters are faced with the reality that come voting time later in the year, there will only be two realistic options; a Government which has mislead, bungled, betrayed and belittled the electorate OR a Government led by right wing conservative Catholic with impulse control problems. Voters with a world view slightly left of centre are now completely bereft of the opportunity to vote for a Government that represents their world view. While in the short term the ALP will benefit from a golden stream of preferences from the Greens, ensuring re-election, they face being marginalised in the long term.

The 1990 election was the ALP’s first experience in riding back into office on the back of the Green vote. While at the time this was a master stroke by right wing fat cat Graham Richardson, the continued surge in Green popularity will potentially result in some raised eyebrows in the smoked filled back rooms of Chinese restaurants in Canberra. Back in 1990, the Greens were merely a tiger cub, relatively harmless to the lumbering political elephants that ruled the political jungle. The failure of the ALP to dine on its traditional food supply, the left wing voters of Australia, has meant that the Greens have been feasting on a bounty over the past two decades. Garnering a nation wide primary vote of 16% means that while the ALP has been slumbering, the Greens have grown into an adolescent tiger, potentially capable of inflicting some unexpected wounds.

While a 16% primary vote is not enough for the Greens to compete against the ALP on a national level, the nature of the Green vote across the nation is not uniform. Leafy inner suburban suburbs housing intellectual and arty types are fertile breeding grounds for the Greens. At the last Federal election, Lindsay Tanner’s inner Melbourne seat almost fell to the Greens. A continued failure for the ALP to engage its traditional base makes an eventual Federal lower house victory by the Greens almost inevitable. Given that the majority of the leadership positions of the ALP are occupied by power hungry fat cats with a vacuum where their beliefs should be makes turning the tide a difficult task.

The ALP’s gradual abandonment of its’ core beliefs over the past 25 years has transformed the party into a rudderless rabble, unsure of what it stands for. This has caused a transformation in the type of young people that are joining the party, and the belief structures of the people that reach positions of authority. When a political party develops such a severe identity crisis, it can take decades of turmoil to resolve. The worst case scenario for the ALP in the future is that all left wing voters support the Greens and all conservative voters support the Liberal party. If this eventuates, the ALP will become the equivalent of the Australian Democrats. This is a fate that the grand old party does not deserve.

True believers of nothing

During the 90s, one of my favourite television shows was Seinfeld, the so called “show about nothing”. A central tenet of all of my blogs posts has been that the Australian Labor Party, and the Right faction in particular, is fast becoming a party which is “about nothing”. Gone are the days where the blue collar worker can sit his son down and say “Liberals are for the bosses, Labor is for the workers”. While I have been harping on about this loss of ideology for some time, this week I received an ally in the great 90s ALP Prime Minister Paul “Placido” Keating. Placido, in response to the Rudd betrayal of Morris Iemma, said the following;
I think the problem with Centre Unity in NSW (the Right) is that it lacks now an ideology. When I say an ideology, it lacks an ideology other than the sheer pursuit of power, Mr Keating says. It's clear enough about that, but power for what? And to do what? This is where the national party always depended on Centre Unity, its processes, its real-world touch. When the motivation of the machinery of the party is unfurnished as to policy purpose, it has nothing more to offer than to focus on marketing and polls. After a while the public becomes aware of this and they realise that marketing and spin have no basis. That is more the rule these days than the exception. This is not a winning formula.
So when I say that the ALP is now about nothing, I am being slightly inaccurate. The one thing they are about is power for power’s sake. The corporate boxes, the ministerial drivers, the prestige of sitting on the Government side of the Parliamentary floor. Gone of the days of Whitlam, Dunstan and Keating, where a Government was willing to risk its office by taking unpopular or risky decisions based upon ideology. I remember Senator Don Farrell belittling the Whitlam Government for its short term of office. He went on to say that following that Government, he decided to never allow ALP Governments to get booted out prematurely again. The ascendency of the right faction, led in SA by Don Farrell, has resulted in the abandonment of Whitlamesque reforming zeal, replaced by a reliance on governing through opinion poll. As Keating says, however, a reliance on marketing and polls will only work.
It is true that the Whitlam Government lasted for only 3 years. During that time, however, a substantial amount of ideological reforms were pushed through. While these reforms were unpopular, a high percentage of them are still in place today. The political cycle inevitably flitters between conservative and progressive Governments. The important thing for both sides of politics is to reform as much as possible according to their ideology during the years when they are in ascendency. Clinging to power by doing as little as possible will not work forever. The public tires of the faces as easily as they tire of policies. Spinning promises only work if you follow through on them. Not even the world’s greatest PR team can convince a member of the public that their personal experience of the world around them has changed for the better when it has worsened. When the “it’s time” factor arrives, and a new Government is elected, they will dismantle a proportion of the previous Government’s program and begin implementing their own. It is the duty of every progressive Government to reform in such a way that makes it difficult for future conservative Governments to roll back their achievements. By adopting a “no ideological” approach to governing, the ALP is ensuring the predominance of conservative ideology.
A useful example of the ALP’s abandonment of ideology is the Adelaide Oval debacle plaguing Kevin “Hugh Hefner” Foley. For a period of time before the last election, the ALP was espousing an ideological belief that a hospital was better than a stadium. The unpopularity of this position, partially due to the Marj naming balls up, had the Government reeling in the opinion polls. Instead of holding steadfastly to their original position, they abandoned ideology and cobbled together an ill-thought out proposal aimed at pleasing everyone. This policy was a clear example of an attempt to retain power. As time goes on, it is clear that the scheme proposed is not the best use of taxpayer’s money, nor is it the best way to build a stadium. While the short term spin of the announcement was enough to ensure the Rann Government’s re-election, the public is beginning to realise that “the spin and marketing has no basis”. While Foley and Rann will be the losers in the short term, the long term losers are the public and the supporters (former and present) of a once proud political party.

The Unelectables

I will commence this blog post with a quote made by the Hon Rob Lucas in the Legislative Council last week.

Labor MPs are openly discussing in the corridors that the Hon. Mr Holloway has been told that he has one or two years left as minister and Leader of the Government in this chamber and that, at the end of the one or two year period, the constant companion, the St Bernard dog, the Hon. Mr Finnigan, will be taking over as the Leader of the Government. Heaven help this chamber and heaven help the government if indeed that were to occur!

He went on to say that this was in a breach of a deal that was made with Minister Holloway prior to the election. When I read Mr Lucas’s matter of interest, I immediately pictured the image of a pack of young wolves gnawing at the bones of their former pack leader. While this may be acceptable behaviour in the animal kingdom, it marks an immense lack of respect for the contribution Paul Holloway has made to the party.

The recent election result must have sent a shock through the young pack of Labor wolves, especially those on the brink of pre-selection. Given that the ALP appears to be on the downward slide in the election cycle, on both the Federal and State levels, the spoils of Government could potentially disappear over the next four years. Factional warriors will now be greedily eying the limelight. What these power hungry pack fail to realize, however, is that the spoils they are fighting over wouldn’t exist without honourable servants, such as Paul Holloway.

In the Legislative Council, Paul Holloway plays the role of the kindergarten teacher, babysitting powerful party figures that would be un-electable in a lower house election race. The Upper House should be home to intellectuals like Holloway, members capable of poring over piles of reports and enduring hours of committees. Members of the upper house should be driving policy development while the lower house members sell it to the public. The above the line voting system, however, means that the Upper House is the home for those that are powerful but unappealing to the public. Holloway, who has the memory of Rain Man without the autism, has done a masterful job over the past ten years managing the Governments business in the Upper House with little support. Now that the wolves are at his door, I suspect that he may allow them in and allow the feeding to commence.

Paul Holloway has become increasingly disenchanted with the “dumbing down” of the Right faction over recent years. Labor Unity, the boozy boys club of 2010 bares very little resemblance to the faction he helped form decades ago. Pessimistic at the best of times, Holloway would be meeting the current threat to his power with gloom and immense disappointment. It is reasonable to suspect that he will jettison this pack of ingrates and head for the hills for a well earned retirement. When he does, the Government of this state will be the weaker for it. Let us see how Bernard Finnigan copes under the stress and fire of the role, especially given the Government is in its dying term.

Another tasty morsel offered by the Mr Lucas regards the recent affairs of Russell Wortley. Paul Holloway isn’t the only upper house member under threat of dethroning. At the Federal level, Dana Wortley, the unlikely Senator, may be staring down the loss of her seat. Wortley, it should be remembered, was a surprise winner as third member of the ALP senate ticket. She gained that spot after Frances Bedford forced Wortley out of the candidacy for Makin in place of Tony Zappia. It must be said that the SA ALP Senate team is incredibly weak, with underachievers in Anne McEwen, Annette Hurley and Wortley. Don Farrell has a quiet public profile, but undoubtedly pulls many private strings. Penny Wong is the only Senator that your average SA voter could name. This needs to change.

I am not opposed to the knifing of Dana. I still recall a ludicrous speech she made to a Young Labor meeting, which verged on embarrassing for all involved. What it shows, however, is that the young stallions are champing at the bit, and willing to engage in cloke and dagger endeavours to force their way into Parliament. The inevitable consequence of these actions is the splintering of allegiances, wounded prides and then ultimately profoundly damaging leaking from within the Government. The ALP SA 2014 death march continues rolling on.

Starting a Rau

Last Friday State Parliament whirred into action for another term. Perhaps whirred isn’t the proper term. What noise does a mouse running on a wheel make? Pitter-patter? The point I am trying to make is, since the March 20 poll, the apparent silence emerging from Government mouth piece Mike Rann has been deafening. Of course he has been tweeting (I suspect the only way this will ever stop is when the blackberry is pried from his cold, dead hands). Upon checking the Government propaganda website, I scrolled through quite a number of Premier’s office media releases. So clearly Mike is still talking. When a Premier holds a media conference in the woods, and no one turns up, does he still make a sound?

Through my perusal of the SA Government website, I noticed that lower tier Government Ministers Snelling, O’Brien, Koutsantonis, Rankine and Portolesi were pumping out media releases ad nauseum. They are clearly still enamoured with their portfolio areas and are beavering away, eying a promotion in the next reshuffle or two. Of course Mike Rann had a smattering of pressers, but the only one that I can recall making any public impact was his response to the Federal Health package. This, however, was an issue where the media was actively seeking his view. This in contrast with the other new name in the list of Government media releases was the new Attorney General, John Rau. Every word he has spoken since his swearing in has been given extensive media coverage. Does the media in this State have a new darling?

Before delving into the significance of the emergence of John Rau as the media’s choice to take as Premier, I should discuss the lame duck, the dead horse, the monkey in the room, Mike Rann. His relative silence (bearing in mind silence for Mike is still a cacophony of noise to the normal man) could be explained for a few factors. Firstly, the 2010 election campaign was particularly bruising. He could simply be tending to his wounds and developing a plot to re-establish his public popularity. Maybe he thinks that the public just needs a break, and when he returns, he will be welcomed back like a relative whose flight had been delayed due to volcanic ash. On the other hand, it is possible that the arrows flung during the 2010 battle lodged too deeply for repair. Certainly towards the end of the campaign, his famous endurance seemed on the wane. Whatever the reason, the gap in the airways has now been filled by the new AG, John Rau.


I met the news regarding the elevation of John Rau to Attorney-General with delight. As a matter of fact, I had called for his elevation well before the March 20 poll. Michael Atkinson’s resignation and Rau’s elevation, however, came as a complete surprise. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe Michael Atkinson had the self-awareness and humility to acknowledge that he was a liability. Atkinson’s fall, jump or push, forced the Right faction to elevate Mr Rau, despite his wide spread unpopularity within the faction. He never turns up to factional fundraisers or social events, and seems to walk apart from the pack. Although he keeps his distance from the pack, he is still a member of the Right, which may cause all sorts of problems in the foreseeable future.

In a recent fluffy Advertiser profile piece, John Rau was touted as a future Premier. Messrs Koutsantonis and Foley would not have been pleased by this media anointment. I remember the outrage when Government staffer Stephen Mullighan was mentioned in the same lofty terms. Whether it be Medieval England or modern South Australian politics, there is always intrigue and threat of war when a new contender for the throne emerges. This is especially the case when the contender resides within the same palace as the king-in-waiting.

The problem that Foley and Koutsantonis face in warding of a John Rau tilt at the leadership is that Rau is baggage free whereas they are carting around the equivalent of Emelda Marcos’s travel luggage. The media sees Rau as a fresh face and voice, whereas Foley’s tricks are old hat. Koutsantonis is still reeling from his Turbo Tom alter ego. Weatherill and Conlon are going to be engaging in trench warfare for the foreseeable future. John Rau, of course, is a slave to the “numbers” and it is unlikely that he will get factional support. On the other hand, if his public appeal continues to grow, factional fat cats may have no other choice.

Backflop

3:43 PM, 4/5/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

It is with much dismay and sadness that I commence writing my first Federal politics blog. Although in recent times I had become severely disenchanted with the SA Branch of the ALP, the lingering hatred of John Howard had kept me clinging to the hope of a bright future under the Rudd Government. The last few weeks of “deck clearing” by Rudd and colleagues, however, has amounted to a fundamental breach of trust with the Australian people. In my opinion, the ETS backflop will be fatal to the Rudd’s leadership, but hopefully not the ALP Government as a whole.

In politics, backflips are not always harmful. In some instances, it can signal that a Government is listening to public sentiment and humble enough to acknowledge its’ mistakes. This ETS backflip, however, is a whole other kettle of fish. Normally a back flip results from wide spread public outrage in response to a given policy. With the ETS, the usual suspects (coal industry, business groups etc) were outraged and vocal in their opposition. The quiet remainder, however, was either confused as to the implications or accepting that action was needed on Climate Change. I assert that well over 50 per cent of the population would have been in favour of the ETS if it was explained in Keating English, not Rudd bureaucracisms and Wong legalese. What was the purpose of this back flip? Such action would never win over the sceptics, who prefer to support Abbott, who is one of their own. To the uninformed swinging voter, the only message they get from the whole debacle is that Rudd doesn’t follow through. To those passionate about climate change, however, every syllable from this day forward carefully uttered by Kevin Rudd will ring hollow.

The Government has various arguments which they can advance in defence of their back flip. They can point to the obstructionism of the Opposition and minor parties. Senate obstructionism is as old as the Federation itself, however. In order to govern in Australia, the Senate is an element of the system that must be dealt with. Usually this is through compromise, not wholesale abandonment of principles. They also had the choice of running an election campaign on action for climate change, a battle that I believe would have been won. Why then, did the PM opt for the path down which lies inevitable political ruin?

I cannot begin to fathom the reasoning behind the ETS back down, but I will endeavour to speculate. Clearly Rudd was frightened of the “great big tax on everything rhetoric”. He will find any opposition leader capable of over simplification or neat sound bites difficult to counter, as every public uttering he makes comes in three pillars, with numerous caveats. Perhaps the Government is relying on the culpability of the Opposition in stalling the legislation. Maybe they think that believing in Climate Change but not having the guts to do anything about it is better than not believing in it at all. I suspect that the ultimate motivation, however, was freeing up 2 billion dollars in cash to hurl at the electorate in the upcoming election campaign.

If the ETS backdown was designed to free up cash for pre-election spending spree, it is perhaps an unwise move. Any big spending Government programs will be faced with two major dilemmas; 1. Will this end up like your Government insulation scheme? 2. Are you going to back down from this after the election like with the ETS/Child care etc? In addition, the Liberal Opposition is already trying to paint the ALP Government with the traditional high spending/high taxing brush. A hefty pre-election spending program will play directly into their hands.

The ALP’s saving grace at this point in time is the unpalatable nature of the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, and the unwillingness for many in the community to return to the days of Howardism. The ALP at both State and Federal levels is fast becoming the “lesser of two evils” party. They continue to govern not because of their merits, but because of the lack of merit in the alternative. This is an unfortunate position for the country to be in, and augers well for the emergence of a third force that is perhaps less extreme than the Greens. The most likely outcome in the coming election is the narrow re-election of a Rudd Government, followed by the swift guillotining of the PM, to be replaced by either Julia Gillard (ballooned by public sentiment) or whomever the fat Catholic power brokers decide. In any event, this election will force voters to decide; do you prefer someone who believes in things that are different to you over someone that believes nothing at all?

Cornes still on the ALP’s side

3:35 PM, 19/4/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Well the Rann Government has a new mining adviser in WAG, law graduate and former candidate Nicole Cornes. Oh I forgot to mention that Nicole is a mum, which apparently is an important consideration when determining who is best qualified to steer South Australia’s mining policy. The fact is, however, it is extremely unlikely Nicole will be “steering” policy at all. She doesn’t come from a background in the mining industry, and the only “mining law” she would have studied would be a couple of court cases in Constitutional Law. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Fairy Bay was a large multinational coal exporter. The portfolio of mining is extremely ironic given her extensive knowledge of the ALP’s Uranium policy following her pre-selection. It should be noted however, that few political advisers have a background in their portfolios, and their role is to provide political advice. Readers can decide for themselves the degree of political astuteness possessed by Mrs Cornes. Of course the appointment was not a popular PR exercise, but the ALP could care less at this stage. The gravy train is still rolling for at least another four years. This bodes well for fat cats and associates, but not for the good Government of South Australia.

Before examining the implications for the State as a whole, some time must be spent examining why Nicole was promoted to a higher post. It is widely acknowledge that the responsibility for the spectacular failure of the Boothby election campaign rests with bovver boys Kevin Foley and Tom Koutsantonis. Nicole was a metaphorical lamb to the slaughter, and I have much sympathy for the manner in which she was treated, particularly with reference to the legal matters stemming from her childhood. With balls ups like this, the right tends to make amends by assisting the victims rather than punishing the perpetrators. The debacle most probably harmed Nicole’s prospects of legal work in this State, and so it would be considered probably fair enough that she be compensated. Also of consideration is the fact that Don Farrell is to the Adelaide Crows what John Howard was to the Australian Cricket Team. He is a Crows tragic, and continued friendship with Cornsey would be highly desirable. Evidence of his Crows fandom is the fact that a prior choice for Boothby candidacy was Mark Bickley! Come on! What about Wayne Weidemann? He would rough up the Liberal front bench. Neil Craig might be looking for a job soon, so keep your eyes peeled. While this farcical method of pre-selection has appeared to be redressed for this election, invisible roles such as advising continue to be a fertile play ground for nepotism.

A few months ago, I was watching the excellent Labor documentary “Labor in Power”. The documentary featured interviews with various Government advisers, most of whom wore glasses, sported brown patches on their jackets and had Dr and phD attached to their names. These are the kind of advisers that steer policy, implementing the significant financial and social reforms of the Keating and Hawke eras. The philosophy of the SA Right is starkly different when appointing advisers. They believe that anyone that is able put on a suit and tie, drink coffee and cash fat pay cheques is qualified enough. For example, the current Sports Adviser for the State Government worked at “Crows Travel” as a travel agent. See the link to sport? Good. Oh he plays footy too. Appointing advisers in this manner is flawed on two levels. Firstly, they lack the qualifications to understand and then adapt policy for the purposes of achieving ALP party ideology. Secondly, in many cases they are lacking a background in the ALP completely, so even if they do understand the issues, the policy they develop or approve may not accord with what is expected of an ALP Government. Is it any wonder that ALP voters abandoned the party in droves at the last election?

The situation doesn’t improve at the upper echelon of Ministerial staffers. Every time Nick Alexandrides attends a COS meeting, he will be greeted with a flock of new Chiefs of Staff, the majority of whom are well under the age of thirty. The Malinauskas flock continues to thrive under this Government, with Peter’s younger brother Rob picking up the COS spot in Turbo Tom Koutsantonis’s office. Another Malinauskas chum Nick Lombardi has taken the long sought after post of Paul Holloway’s COS, which was vacated by long serving Kevin Gent. While it may not be a case of the blind leading the blind, it is most certainly the inexperienced leading the inexperienced. Senior party figures would be relishing another four years of power and could care less for now. I am sure they will deal with the fall out of the 2010 election at some point before 2014. But for now let the gravy train roll.

T-t-t-t-that’s all folks

12:47 PM, 9/4/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link

Today we were greeted with the shock news that SA Parliament’s Porky Pig, Pat Conlon has deserted the Left Faction. This is not the first time that he has done this, but it is the first time that he has done so publicly. Conlon first stormed out of the left a few years ago, when his attempts at going Federal were stymied, probably by the new guard, or Weatherill-Wong Left. For some reason, he then reconsidered his move, and returned cap in hand asking for their forgiveness. While the Left faction accepted his vote, they probably never forgave him for this impetuous move. The crushing of his Canberra ambitions may have been part of the falling out, but a few other factors would have played a role.



Pat Conlon has long been a member of the SA ALP leadership quartet which also consisted of Rann, Foley, Atkinson. Two of his three leadership allies are members of the right, and Rann is unaligned. Being a member of the leadership team has two consequences. Firstly, due to necessity, Conlon would have been jointly involved in many decisions etc with Right members. This may have given the appearance within the Left that he was in cahoots with the Right. The Foley-Conlon relationship, in particular, blossomed due to a shared love of power and boozing on. Readers may recall the infamous Xenophon Parliamentary Bar incident, where a heavily intoxicated Foley and Conlon abused Mr X in unsavoury terms (or at least one of them did). The Right Faction in general has a boozy culture, which I freely admit to partaking in; too much on many occasions. The personalities of members of the Right have much more in common with Mr Conlon than the left.



Politics, and factions in particular, have changed over the years. Once upon a time they were all about ideologies, whereas now they are mainly concerned with personalities. Sure, the hierarchy of the Right is still predominately Catholic, and the hierarchy of the left wore Che Guevera t-shirts in their youth. At the grass roots level, however, it is more about indoctrinating the new recruits into a pack mentality; us versus them. It is more about the battle than the cause. In SA in recent years, factional allegiance is more about survival than ideology. For example, I remember being at the meeting which announced that Michael Wright had joined the Right ( I believe it was the same meeting as when Kate Ellis was announced as candidate for Adelaide). He hadn’t changed his opinions on the class struggle or preferred economic model. He was at risk of being booted from the Ministry by the Left, and sought refuge or asylum within the Right. Wright broke the barrier, and many more were soon to follow. Traditional enemies, such as Lea Stevens, the Wortley’s, John Camillo and Robyn Geraghty (and staff/supporters) began turning up at Labor Right fundraisers. This was done purely out of self interest. I remember the shock of a leftie meat workers trade unionist when I told him Russel Wortley was at a Makin School (right) Dinner. He proclaimed “But he was more left wing than me”. Wortley now has a standing order on corporate box soccer tickets at Adelaide United, where he can sip chardonnay and cast his gaze down upon the huddled masses. Survival doesn’t explain Pat’s departure, however.



In a previous blog, following the reshuffle, I noted that Conlon has been in a stagnant cabinet position for some time. It appeared that he had reached the pinnacle, the highest point available to a left wing minister. The positions of AG, Treasurer and Premier seemed out of reach. With Jay Weatherill stealing the left’s support as their preferred choice for future Premier, Pat didn’t really have any reason to remain in the fold. While Conlon has never been mentioned in newspaper predictions as future Premier material, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t envision the possibility in his little pink head. His defection from the left means that he is positioning himself for one of two options. He has either accepted that he has achieved as much as he can, and is preparing to bow out OR he is positioning himself as a middle ground option in a future leadership ballot. Time will tell what his strategy is.



One final question to ponder is the loyalties of Conlon acolytes Leon Bignell and Paul Caica. Paul Caica strikes me as someone of strong left wing beliefs, and I would lose much respect for him if he chose to defect. Bignell, on the other hand, started out political life as a Conlon adviser, and his ideologies probably followed on from there. He is an even money bet on switching with Conlon in my view, although I am not an expert on this area.