Today in South Australian politics, member for Finniss Michael Pengilly became embroiled in controversy when he called the Prime Minister a dog in a tweet. This is the second Twitter instigated scandal in recent months, following Tom Kenyon’s night out at the lizard races. Social networking technology is a relatively new phenomena, and the great potential and possibilities of this new medium are yet to be fully understood. Some celebrities, such as Conan O’Brien and indie-songstress Amanda Palmer have utilized social media deftly. It is my argument, however, that politicians would be much better served by ignoring this media outlet, for the following reasons;
1. Followers are not fans
Generally speaking, a public identity will be followed on twitter by people that are either fans of their work, or fans of what they have to say. Justin Bieber, for example, would be followed predominately by pre-pubescent girls, whilst pro fighter Wanderlei “The Axe Murderer” Silva would predominately be followed by men between 18-34 with a penchant for syndicated violence. Politicians, however, are different, because a very high percentage of their followers are likely to be “hostile”. I guarantee that every SA MP with a twitter account is followed by almost the entire SA media contingent, as well as staffers from rival political parties. These people are looking for slip-ups, and they will pounce on them, with haste.
2. You are not Kanye
One of the great draw cards of Twitter is that it can give you an insight into the personality and mental state of a public figure. By letting us into their crazy lives, we feel like we understand them more completely. Kanye West was notable in the early days, with his emotive, obsessive compulsive, narcissistic and controversial tweets. Controversy is not necessarily a bad thing for rock stars. Publicity sells records. Infamy can be as good as fame sometimes. Eccentricity and controversy, however, for politicians is death. So while there is no great harm in John Hill MP letting us know about the trials and tribulations of his vegetable garden, a sister’s birthday, with accompanying lizard racing, caused a fortnight long headache for Tom Kenyon. I guess the point of this section is, it is fine letting the public into your private life if you can guarantee there is nothing in there that they shouldn’t see. Determining where that line lies can be difficult, especially given the capacity to tweet thoughts immediately, 24/7.
3. The middle man is there for a reason
One of the great criticisms of modern politics (and perhaps one of the areas that social media is attempting to address) is that everything is media managed and sterile. The spin doctors and advisers, however, do serve a purpose, especially given the modern decline in merit based pre-selection. On both sides of politics, there are people elected to Parliament that are well over their heads, intellectually speaking. Without middle men and women checking, scripting, coaching and planning their MPs and Ministers, there would be chaos. Twitter basically removes the middle man, giving the public an unencumbered view of the inner workings of an MPs mind. This is not always a good thing.
4. The only way is down.
Social networking can be a wonderful medium for an artist, band, or public figure seeking to build their career. It allows access to a wider audience than would otherwise be possible. I also foresee that it could be a very useful tool for political candidates to gain greater exposure. I question, however, what an elected MP has to gain from use of social networking websites. Sure, they may argue that it allows them to better interact with their electorate, but do they need this added layer? Between an electorate office, mail-outs, street corner meetings, door-knocking and so on, there are a multitude of ways in which a member of the public can raise their concerns with an MP. Unlike international rap stars, MPs are amongst the most accessible people in public life. Most of these alternative methods of contact are private, and can be acted upon in due course, upon advice, without the risk of controversy or balls up.
5. The Dalai Lama’s Twitter is Dalai Lame
When I clicked the follow button on the Dalai Lama’s twitter account, I had a brief giggle at the thought of him pulling his iPhone out of a specially stitched pocket in his robe, ready to tweet. But of course, he doesn’t write his own tweets. This, I predict, will be the eventual path that most politicians take; delegation to PR department. I never read Julia Gillard’s tweets, because it is the same message delivered in every other medium. It isn’t personal, it isn’t providing any insight, it defeats the entire purpose of twitter. Tweeting in this way provides no political benefit. If people have tuned out, they will tune out from this as well.
Some MPs, notably Mike Rann and Kevin Rudd, have made excellent use of Twitter. Both of these men, however, are 24/7, obsessive professional politicians. Whenever they speak, they are on message. They never let anything out into the public sphere which could convey an adverse or unintended political message. This requires an excessive amount of self-discipline, which most MPs are not capable of exercising on any long term basis. It would be my advice to any curious MP to set up an account under a false name, and just play the voyeur. They won’t lose out on any votes that way.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Age of Entitlement
Jay Weatherill, as the new ALP spearhead, has made a very strong start to his leadership of the State Government. An army is only as strong as its weakest point, however. The Liberal party strategists have wisely identified Jay’s close factional ally, Grace Portolesi, as Jay’s Achilles heel. As the scandal grows from a measley $7,000 mole hill into a full blown mountain, Jay is forced to weigh loyalty with political reality. In this article, I will argue that the general attitude towards Parliamentary entitlements is responsible for the current affair.
Members of Parliament are granted various entitlements, including travel and printing allowances. Each member, obviously, has a maximum amount, above which an MP is not able to spend. Using a bastardization of accounting terminology, there are two ways one can approach such an issue; the top down method or the bottom up method. An MP can adopt the bottom up method, where they do their job, spend as they feel is necessary, keeping an eye on how much they have spent to ensure that they are not running out of funds. This is the approach that most members of the community adopt to their house hold budgets.
A top down approach, however, begins by viewing the maximum amount of funds available and assuming that they MUST be spent. I call this the spoilt child approach. Billy got a fire truck, so I WANT my fire truck. But Jonny, you don’t like fire trucks. I don’t care, I am ENTITLED to it. An MP, hypothetically, getting towards the end of the financial year, could view the balance of their printing entitlements and realize they still have funds to print reams and reams of crap to flood the electorate with. Or they could just shrug their shoulders and let the money sit unspent, resolving to be more productive next year. I argue that an MP should use the necessities of their job as the governing principle, rather than the amount they are able to spend. If they adopt this approach, they will never get into trouble.
Grace Portolesi, in her horrendous interview this week with Matt and Dave, appeared to imply that with respect to Parliamentary travel spouse allowance, she adopts the top down approach. (I make no inference that this applies to her attitude to entitlements generally). Certainly, it cannot be argued that it was necessary to take her daughter to India. She said, to the effect, that because other MPs are entitled to the money, why should she miss out? She can’t take her husband, because of his employment, so she must take her daughter away, lest she be deprived of her metaphorical fire truck. It was my impression that her worship of the Parliamentary Entitlements deity was such that it was all out of her control. It has been written, we shall receive such funds each year, and thou shalt spend it, lest ye be ridiculed in the Blue Room for being a sucker. She would not be alone in this approach. When it comes to travel, many MPs squeeze every last drop out of their entitlements. Unfortunately, for her, the following of this commandment has landed her in political purgatory.
It must be said that, as far as ‘travel rorts” go, the amount that Portolesi spent seems piddling. To understand her current predicament, you must listen to her confrontational, remorseless, self-righteous interviews in the media. A simple apology would have sufficed, I am sure, despite the myriad of other controversies that have enflamed her in recent months. But of course, it is clear that she feels she has done nothing wrong. Her inability to see what she has done wrong could be the end of her, and by extension, her patron Jay.
Members of Parliament are granted various entitlements, including travel and printing allowances. Each member, obviously, has a maximum amount, above which an MP is not able to spend. Using a bastardization of accounting terminology, there are two ways one can approach such an issue; the top down method or the bottom up method. An MP can adopt the bottom up method, where they do their job, spend as they feel is necessary, keeping an eye on how much they have spent to ensure that they are not running out of funds. This is the approach that most members of the community adopt to their house hold budgets.
A top down approach, however, begins by viewing the maximum amount of funds available and assuming that they MUST be spent. I call this the spoilt child approach. Billy got a fire truck, so I WANT my fire truck. But Jonny, you don’t like fire trucks. I don’t care, I am ENTITLED to it. An MP, hypothetically, getting towards the end of the financial year, could view the balance of their printing entitlements and realize they still have funds to print reams and reams of crap to flood the electorate with. Or they could just shrug their shoulders and let the money sit unspent, resolving to be more productive next year. I argue that an MP should use the necessities of their job as the governing principle, rather than the amount they are able to spend. If they adopt this approach, they will never get into trouble.
Grace Portolesi, in her horrendous interview this week with Matt and Dave, appeared to imply that with respect to Parliamentary travel spouse allowance, she adopts the top down approach. (I make no inference that this applies to her attitude to entitlements generally). Certainly, it cannot be argued that it was necessary to take her daughter to India. She said, to the effect, that because other MPs are entitled to the money, why should she miss out? She can’t take her husband, because of his employment, so she must take her daughter away, lest she be deprived of her metaphorical fire truck. It was my impression that her worship of the Parliamentary Entitlements deity was such that it was all out of her control. It has been written, we shall receive such funds each year, and thou shalt spend it, lest ye be ridiculed in the Blue Room for being a sucker. She would not be alone in this approach. When it comes to travel, many MPs squeeze every last drop out of their entitlements. Unfortunately, for her, the following of this commandment has landed her in political purgatory.
It must be said that, as far as ‘travel rorts” go, the amount that Portolesi spent seems piddling. To understand her current predicament, you must listen to her confrontational, remorseless, self-righteous interviews in the media. A simple apology would have sufficed, I am sure, despite the myriad of other controversies that have enflamed her in recent months. But of course, it is clear that she feels she has done nothing wrong. Her inability to see what she has done wrong could be the end of her, and by extension, her patron Jay.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Mike Rann Comes Out
This weekend during a speech at my alma mater, Flinders University, outgoing South Australian Premier Mike Rann publicly pronounced his support for gay marriage. During this speech, he said he formed these views during conversations in the 1970s with the late, great Don Dunstan and former High Court Justice Michael Kirby. This seems to suggest that he has held these views for almost his entire public life, but has only chosen to voice them now. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a very long time to remain in the closet. Why has he waited until now? There are various possibilities.
To completely understand Mike Rann’s actions throughout his premiership, you must be aware of the influence of the Right faction on the security of his tenure. To ignore this fact would be akin to reading DH Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers without the knowledge that Lawrence was gay. Rann would not be Premier without Don Farrell and the Right. They supported him when nobody else would, through opposition, Chantelois and onwards. While I am not suggesting that Rann was the Right’s puppet (he certainly had a degree of autonomy), he was certainly restricted when dealing with certain policy areas. I will call them the holy trinity; stem-cell research, gay marriage and shop trading hours.
This morning, Catholic Right faction warhorse Michael Atkinson apparently (I am interstate) went on 891 ABC and spoke against the concept of gay marriage, saying they were statistically more likely to end in divorce. Leaving aside the fact that Atkinson’s own marriage didn’t last, I cannot see how this statistic is relevant, even if it is true. In a way, such a statistic makes sense, because many marriages/long term relationships stay together for the sake of the children. Gay relationships would clearly have a much smaller incidence of children. Accuracy of any such research aside, the main motivation for Atkinson and Co’s opposition to gay marriage stems from another, more famous text; the Holy Bible.
The only real reasons to oppose the union of gay people in marriage are religious. As an agnostic, therefore, I have no objection to a policy that would reduce the suffering of and prejudice against a significant percentage of our community whilst creating no adverse impact on those in society with no vested interest in the issue. With the majority of society moving towards this view point, it is less controversial for a political leader to come out in support. Rann could point to the passing of motions at ALP state conventions around the country as his reason for finally voicing his position. I wonder, however, if there was perhaps a more sneaky motivation.
As I write, we are one week away from Jay Weatherill’s ascension to the position of Premier. When he takes over, he will need to make some overt and dramatic changes to signal to the party and the public that it is not a transition, but a transformation. With the Treasury cupboards bare, however, he will be restricted to symbolic and attitudinal changes. As a long term supporter of a gay marriage, Jay perhaps was planning to use this issue to signal a changing of the guard. Mike Rann, however, got there first, just as he did with the new police station etc. Not only did he beat Weatherill to the punch, he also poisoned any potential State action by saying that only the Feds can take meaningful action. Rann seems determined to suck every single gust of wind from Weatherill’s sails, like some cosmic political vacuum cleaner. While it is a very Machiavellian scenario, it is certainly not a plot beyond the capabilities of the maestro, Mike Rann.
To completely understand Mike Rann’s actions throughout his premiership, you must be aware of the influence of the Right faction on the security of his tenure. To ignore this fact would be akin to reading DH Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers without the knowledge that Lawrence was gay. Rann would not be Premier without Don Farrell and the Right. They supported him when nobody else would, through opposition, Chantelois and onwards. While I am not suggesting that Rann was the Right’s puppet (he certainly had a degree of autonomy), he was certainly restricted when dealing with certain policy areas. I will call them the holy trinity; stem-cell research, gay marriage and shop trading hours.
This morning, Catholic Right faction warhorse Michael Atkinson apparently (I am interstate) went on 891 ABC and spoke against the concept of gay marriage, saying they were statistically more likely to end in divorce. Leaving aside the fact that Atkinson’s own marriage didn’t last, I cannot see how this statistic is relevant, even if it is true. In a way, such a statistic makes sense, because many marriages/long term relationships stay together for the sake of the children. Gay relationships would clearly have a much smaller incidence of children. Accuracy of any such research aside, the main motivation for Atkinson and Co’s opposition to gay marriage stems from another, more famous text; the Holy Bible.
The only real reasons to oppose the union of gay people in marriage are religious. As an agnostic, therefore, I have no objection to a policy that would reduce the suffering of and prejudice against a significant percentage of our community whilst creating no adverse impact on those in society with no vested interest in the issue. With the majority of society moving towards this view point, it is less controversial for a political leader to come out in support. Rann could point to the passing of motions at ALP state conventions around the country as his reason for finally voicing his position. I wonder, however, if there was perhaps a more sneaky motivation.
As I write, we are one week away from Jay Weatherill’s ascension to the position of Premier. When he takes over, he will need to make some overt and dramatic changes to signal to the party and the public that it is not a transition, but a transformation. With the Treasury cupboards bare, however, he will be restricted to symbolic and attitudinal changes. As a long term supporter of a gay marriage, Jay perhaps was planning to use this issue to signal a changing of the guard. Mike Rann, however, got there first, just as he did with the new police station etc. Not only did he beat Weatherill to the punch, he also poisoned any potential State action by saying that only the Feds can take meaningful action. Rann seems determined to suck every single gust of wind from Weatherill’s sails, like some cosmic political vacuum cleaner. While it is a very Machiavellian scenario, it is certainly not a plot beyond the capabilities of the maestro, Mike Rann.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Julia Gillard is New Coke
Malcolm Gladwell, in his outstanding book Blink, discusses the colossal error of judgment made by Coca Cola during the 1980s, when it launched New Coke to tackle the incursion on their market share by Pepsi Cola. Coke’s executives were spooked by results of taste test market research into abandoning their time tested formula in favor of a new recipe. This decision proved disastrous for various reasons. I will call these factors the sip factor, the brand factor the context factor and the instinct factor. It is my assertion that the decision to knife Kevin Rudd and install Julia Gillard by factional powerbrokers has failed for the same reason that New Coke failed.
When dealing with cola, there is a major difference in consumer response depending upon the quantity consumed. Consumers liked Pepsi better when just taking a sip, because it was sweeter. When consuming an entire can, however, results are drastically different. Pepsi becomes too sweet. The same can be said with politicians. Kevin Rudd, as PM, was in the limelight every day, so naturally the public began to tire of some aspects of his personality. The opposition leader and front bench ministers, however, attracted much less attention. With Gillard, for example, her fake laugh and passion for the Bulldogs were a positive while she was spared from microscopic scrutiny. Now they are some of the many aspects of her personality that grate with the populace. While polling figures for Rudd were on a slide, a proper indicator of his popularity compared to Tony Abbott could only be reached following an election campaign, with both leaders exposed to the saturation coverage. Rudd, of course, had been to an election before, which brings us to the brand factor.
Pepsi Cola was gaining market share on Coke during the 80s, and many felt that the taste of Pepsi was superior. Coke, however had an ace up its sleeve; its’ branding. This included the famous logo, the colours, the jingle. Most importantly, generations of consumers had grown up with the brand, and felt comfortable with it. While the Kevin 07 brand was by no means as successful and developed as Coke, at least it was market tested in one of the most unforgiving markets ever; the political market. The rival product, Tony Abbott, had never been purchased nor had Julia Gillard. While the public was tiring of the taste of Kevin 07, they were yet to find a compatible alternative to quench their thirsts. Rudd deserved the opportunity to test his brand loyalty at an election.
Another error Coke made in the 80s was assuming that the lab environment translated accurately to the real world. This, however, was a false assumption. The only accurate way to test Coke vs Pepsi is to give the consumer a case of each, and then allow them to consume in their home over a period of time under ordinary circumstances. In the same way, asking someone how they will vote over the phone is grossly inadequate in simulating how someone will actually behave once they are in a polling booth. You cannot accurately test a product outside of the context in which it is used. Sadly, Kevin Rudd was never given the opportunity to prove this.
One of the overriding arguments of Gladwell’s book is that human beings are incapable of accurately enunciating the reasons behind their instincts. I believe this is as true of politics as it is of attraction in relationships or preference for Cola. There are so many factors involved, and the recent attempts by political parties to capture and distillate the instincts of voters are seriously misguided. Climate change is a perfect example. While people may intellectually approve of action, our instincts suspect that it will be a threat to us. The decision to assassinate Kevin Rudd by factional powerbrokers was based upon reams and reams of marketing research, not political instincts. This is why it failed. Until the ALP abandons market research as its primary political tool, they will continue to plummet to record depths of popularity.
When dealing with cola, there is a major difference in consumer response depending upon the quantity consumed. Consumers liked Pepsi better when just taking a sip, because it was sweeter. When consuming an entire can, however, results are drastically different. Pepsi becomes too sweet. The same can be said with politicians. Kevin Rudd, as PM, was in the limelight every day, so naturally the public began to tire of some aspects of his personality. The opposition leader and front bench ministers, however, attracted much less attention. With Gillard, for example, her fake laugh and passion for the Bulldogs were a positive while she was spared from microscopic scrutiny. Now they are some of the many aspects of her personality that grate with the populace. While polling figures for Rudd were on a slide, a proper indicator of his popularity compared to Tony Abbott could only be reached following an election campaign, with both leaders exposed to the saturation coverage. Rudd, of course, had been to an election before, which brings us to the brand factor.
Pepsi Cola was gaining market share on Coke during the 80s, and many felt that the taste of Pepsi was superior. Coke, however had an ace up its sleeve; its’ branding. This included the famous logo, the colours, the jingle. Most importantly, generations of consumers had grown up with the brand, and felt comfortable with it. While the Kevin 07 brand was by no means as successful and developed as Coke, at least it was market tested in one of the most unforgiving markets ever; the political market. The rival product, Tony Abbott, had never been purchased nor had Julia Gillard. While the public was tiring of the taste of Kevin 07, they were yet to find a compatible alternative to quench their thirsts. Rudd deserved the opportunity to test his brand loyalty at an election.
Another error Coke made in the 80s was assuming that the lab environment translated accurately to the real world. This, however, was a false assumption. The only accurate way to test Coke vs Pepsi is to give the consumer a case of each, and then allow them to consume in their home over a period of time under ordinary circumstances. In the same way, asking someone how they will vote over the phone is grossly inadequate in simulating how someone will actually behave once they are in a polling booth. You cannot accurately test a product outside of the context in which it is used. Sadly, Kevin Rudd was never given the opportunity to prove this.
One of the overriding arguments of Gladwell’s book is that human beings are incapable of accurately enunciating the reasons behind their instincts. I believe this is as true of politics as it is of attraction in relationships or preference for Cola. There are so many factors involved, and the recent attempts by political parties to capture and distillate the instincts of voters are seriously misguided. Climate change is a perfect example. While people may intellectually approve of action, our instincts suspect that it will be a threat to us. The decision to assassinate Kevin Rudd by factional powerbrokers was based upon reams and reams of marketing research, not political instincts. This is why it failed. Until the ALP abandons market research as its primary political tool, they will continue to plummet to record depths of popularity.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Strings Attached
Well, it has been an interesting few days for your friendly neighbourhood political blogger. The purpose of this blog always has been to shine a light onto a traditionally shadowy aspect of our political system, the factions of the ALP. The purpose of today’s post is to highlight one area in which our current system of democracy is flawed; the allocation of Cabinet portfolios.
Every day since Mike Rann announced his retirement time table, Jay Weatherill would have been popping the chocolate out of his little political advent calendar. As he nibbles on these chocolates, he will be busily considering the make up of his inaugural Ministry. Unfortunately, for the electorate, it is highly unlikely that Jay will have unfettered discretion when he makes this decision.
In the ALP, it is convention for the factions to determine who will be included within a Ministry, and then the Premier allocates the portfolios. While the Premier technically has ultimate power, they are inevitably provided with strong suggestions, especially regarding certain portfolios. The fate of Kevin Rudd is a highly relevant case study highlighting the risks involved in autonomously determining one’s cabinet. When Jay was granted the support of the Right faction, it is likely that conditions (or “suggestions”) regarding the allocation of portfolios were foreshadowed. It is a taint upon our democracy that we are not privy to such machinations.
While we cannot be certain as to the conditions suggested by the Right regarding portfolio allocation, recent history can be examined to make an educated guess. The Right has been in possession of the Sport and Recreation portfolio since Michael Wright defected from the Left, so we can expect a continuation of this. Arguably, Leon Bignell, former sporting journalist would be most suited to this job, but merit doesn’t necessarily always matter. Responsibility for shop trading hours resides with the IR Minister, and as such is of high importance to the Shoppies Union, fount of power for the Right faction. Industrial Relations, and WorkCover in particular, are the purpose of existence for many within the Left faction, but at the same time the ideologies of these people deeply clashes with that adopted in recent times by the Right. It will be fascinating to see who is given this portfolio, and whether Jay keeps WorkCover and IR divided, especially given his special interest in the portfolio area. The fates of Weatherill’s two leadership rivals will also be fascinating.
I venture to guess that the terms of any Jay/Right negotiated arrangement would have included ensuring that the status quo remains for Jack Snelling and John Rau. Treasurer and AG are two of the most senior positions within any Government. Demoting either Rau or Snelling would possibly be seen as Jay punishing his rivals. Jay faces a difficult time, however, in finding an appropriate portfolio to reward long time ally Grace Portolesi with. Portfolios such as Education, Police and Emergency Services are potential options, but none are as sexy as AG or Treasury.
The public has legitimate cause to be concerned when a Premier is elected, not by the public, but by the factions. It is of greater concern when the negotiations and machinations surrounding this elevation occur in backrooms or cafes, often involving un-elected and unaccountable members of the public. Until the party is reformed, we are forced to observe alterations to the tip of the ice berg, then extrapolate these observations to the organisation as a whole. The healthiest democracy is one which can be described as all tip, no berg.
Every day since Mike Rann announced his retirement time table, Jay Weatherill would have been popping the chocolate out of his little political advent calendar. As he nibbles on these chocolates, he will be busily considering the make up of his inaugural Ministry. Unfortunately, for the electorate, it is highly unlikely that Jay will have unfettered discretion when he makes this decision.
In the ALP, it is convention for the factions to determine who will be included within a Ministry, and then the Premier allocates the portfolios. While the Premier technically has ultimate power, they are inevitably provided with strong suggestions, especially regarding certain portfolios. The fate of Kevin Rudd is a highly relevant case study highlighting the risks involved in autonomously determining one’s cabinet. When Jay was granted the support of the Right faction, it is likely that conditions (or “suggestions”) regarding the allocation of portfolios were foreshadowed. It is a taint upon our democracy that we are not privy to such machinations.
While we cannot be certain as to the conditions suggested by the Right regarding portfolio allocation, recent history can be examined to make an educated guess. The Right has been in possession of the Sport and Recreation portfolio since Michael Wright defected from the Left, so we can expect a continuation of this. Arguably, Leon Bignell, former sporting journalist would be most suited to this job, but merit doesn’t necessarily always matter. Responsibility for shop trading hours resides with the IR Minister, and as such is of high importance to the Shoppies Union, fount of power for the Right faction. Industrial Relations, and WorkCover in particular, are the purpose of existence for many within the Left faction, but at the same time the ideologies of these people deeply clashes with that adopted in recent times by the Right. It will be fascinating to see who is given this portfolio, and whether Jay keeps WorkCover and IR divided, especially given his special interest in the portfolio area. The fates of Weatherill’s two leadership rivals will also be fascinating.
I venture to guess that the terms of any Jay/Right negotiated arrangement would have included ensuring that the status quo remains for Jack Snelling and John Rau. Treasurer and AG are two of the most senior positions within any Government. Demoting either Rau or Snelling would possibly be seen as Jay punishing his rivals. Jay faces a difficult time, however, in finding an appropriate portfolio to reward long time ally Grace Portolesi with. Portfolios such as Education, Police and Emergency Services are potential options, but none are as sexy as AG or Treasury.
The public has legitimate cause to be concerned when a Premier is elected, not by the public, but by the factions. It is of greater concern when the negotiations and machinations surrounding this elevation occur in backrooms or cafes, often involving un-elected and unaccountable members of the public. Until the party is reformed, we are forced to observe alterations to the tip of the ice berg, then extrapolate these observations to the organisation as a whole. The healthiest democracy is one which can be described as all tip, no berg.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Apology Regarding Perceived Imputations of Previous Blog Post
I refer to previous blog post, "Hunter being Hunted". I wish to clarify the usage of the quote by Michael Atkinson in which he stated that the person who leaked the information would likely receive a promotion. It was never my intention to suggest that this was the motivation for the leak, and it is my assertion that the article, when read in its entirety, does not suggest that this was the intention of the leak. The quote in question was only included to suggest that the alleged leaker was a member of the Left faction.
Whilst it was never my intention for the blog to be read in such a manner, I apologise for this aspect of the article and wish to ensure that all readers are aware that I do not and never did assert that this was a motivating factor.
In addition to this, I have on prior occasions made it clear that I did not share the views expressed by the Premier regarding this issue. I harbor no personal ill-will towards the person named in the previous article, and in fact have found him quite amiable and intelligent on the few occasions that we have met. My blog post was not motivated by any personal vendetta. I wrote the blog based upon reasonable grounds. Having said that, I apologise for the absoluteness of the language used in the article. My motivations are, and always have been, improving the transparency of Government. It was never my intention to publish information which could be construed as misleading.
As a blogger, I do not have the status nor the access to politicians in order to seek out their version of events or their views on a particular matter. Despite this, I ensured that the denials of the person in question were published upon this blog at the earliest convenience. Readers of this blog are entitled to weigh the assertions that I made against the denial of the accused. I apologise for the few hours in which the denials were not available on the blog. The denials were included in the publication of the allegations in other outlets, and were published on this blog prior to the publication of the allegations in other outlets. The readership of this blog remains meagre, despite an increase following the publication in other outlets.
I believe that blogging is an important new tool for ensuring a healthy democracy. A blog should never be used for improper purposes. Whilst I remain steadfast in the beliefs that I hold, I apologise for any ambiguities within the article and for my usage of such absolute language. I re-assert that it was not my intention to imply that action was motivated by aspirations for promotion.
Whilst it was never my intention for the blog to be read in such a manner, I apologise for this aspect of the article and wish to ensure that all readers are aware that I do not and never did assert that this was a motivating factor.
In addition to this, I have on prior occasions made it clear that I did not share the views expressed by the Premier regarding this issue. I harbor no personal ill-will towards the person named in the previous article, and in fact have found him quite amiable and intelligent on the few occasions that we have met. My blog post was not motivated by any personal vendetta. I wrote the blog based upon reasonable grounds. Having said that, I apologise for the absoluteness of the language used in the article. My motivations are, and always have been, improving the transparency of Government. It was never my intention to publish information which could be construed as misleading.
As a blogger, I do not have the status nor the access to politicians in order to seek out their version of events or their views on a particular matter. Despite this, I ensured that the denials of the person in question were published upon this blog at the earliest convenience. Readers of this blog are entitled to weigh the assertions that I made against the denial of the accused. I apologise for the few hours in which the denials were not available on the blog. The denials were included in the publication of the allegations in other outlets, and were published on this blog prior to the publication of the allegations in other outlets. The readership of this blog remains meagre, despite an increase following the publication in other outlets.
I believe that blogging is an important new tool for ensuring a healthy democracy. A blog should never be used for improper purposes. Whilst I remain steadfast in the beliefs that I hold, I apologise for any ambiguities within the article and for my usage of such absolute language. I re-assert that it was not my intention to imply that action was motivated by aspirations for promotion.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Disowning your own actions
Yesterday, new Planning Minister John Rau announced a major change in direction for his portfolio and in so doing took a major swipe at previous Minister Paul Holloway. This action shows that the incoming leadership team of Weatherill and Rau is acutely aware that a mere change of faces is not going to save the incumbent Government from electoral disaster. Weatherill and his team needs to identify where the old Government is on the nose and then apply the deodorant to these areas. This is a difficult process when you are steering a Government of almost ten years of age.
Newly elected Governments always have at least a few years worth of opportunities to blame all their constituent’s woes on the previous administrators. In Jay Weatherill’s case, the vast majority of problems facing South Australians have either been caused or have failed to be fixed by a Government that he has been a party of. Only inter-generational failures such as the management of the Murray can be fobbed off as the responsibility of others. While it is possible to blame your former colleagues for their mistakes, this is a dangerous political strategy.
While it is easy for John Rau to say that he has seen the light and is determined to implement a change of direction, actions speak louder than words. The voters will compare 10 years of ALP record with a maximum of 3 years of “new approach”. In addition, Rau cannot admit that Mount Barker was a mistake without taking action to rectify that problem. A new Government can perhaps argue that “it will take time for us to fix the mess the previous mob left us with”, but this approach won’t cut it with a new Minister. Admitting you made a mistake with regard to an existing and ongoing problem which will cost millions of dollars to rectify is not as a easy as reversing a stance on symbolic issues such as gay marriage. Financially, the new Weatherill/Rau team is locked in a tightly strapped straight jacket.
The transition from Kevin Foley to Jack Snelling as Treasurer clearly showed that a change of attitude alone is not sufficient to fix Governmental woes. While I am sure that Jack has been much more considerate and compassionate than Big Kev in his negotiations with the PSA, this means squat unless you have the dollars to reverse your unpopular decision. Foley would not have decided to wage war with the PSA because it was the easiest way out of a financial hole. He decided to do it because it was absolutely necessary to pay for the massive infrastructure spend that the Government has engaged in. Weatherill has basically inherited Old Mother Hubbard’s house. All of the major infrastructure goodies have already been announced by Rann and Foley, and when it comes time to cut the ribbon, Jay will be reminded that it was his predecessors that brought the projects about. The Left faction will demand that any loose change found during a Treasury rummage be spent on improving the rights of injured workers and the like. It isn’t all bad news for the Government, however.
While it is unlikely that the Government will be able to announce any huge capital projects in the lead up to the next election, nor will the Opposition. The departure of Rann, Holloway and Foley and potentially Hill and Conlon will give the new team a greater chance of distancing itself from unpopular past decisions. New faces will count for little, however, unless symbolic and inexpensive methods of changing direction are discovered. Gay marriage anyone?
Newly elected Governments always have at least a few years worth of opportunities to blame all their constituent’s woes on the previous administrators. In Jay Weatherill’s case, the vast majority of problems facing South Australians have either been caused or have failed to be fixed by a Government that he has been a party of. Only inter-generational failures such as the management of the Murray can be fobbed off as the responsibility of others. While it is possible to blame your former colleagues for their mistakes, this is a dangerous political strategy.
While it is easy for John Rau to say that he has seen the light and is determined to implement a change of direction, actions speak louder than words. The voters will compare 10 years of ALP record with a maximum of 3 years of “new approach”. In addition, Rau cannot admit that Mount Barker was a mistake without taking action to rectify that problem. A new Government can perhaps argue that “it will take time for us to fix the mess the previous mob left us with”, but this approach won’t cut it with a new Minister. Admitting you made a mistake with regard to an existing and ongoing problem which will cost millions of dollars to rectify is not as a easy as reversing a stance on symbolic issues such as gay marriage. Financially, the new Weatherill/Rau team is locked in a tightly strapped straight jacket.
The transition from Kevin Foley to Jack Snelling as Treasurer clearly showed that a change of attitude alone is not sufficient to fix Governmental woes. While I am sure that Jack has been much more considerate and compassionate than Big Kev in his negotiations with the PSA, this means squat unless you have the dollars to reverse your unpopular decision. Foley would not have decided to wage war with the PSA because it was the easiest way out of a financial hole. He decided to do it because it was absolutely necessary to pay for the massive infrastructure spend that the Government has engaged in. Weatherill has basically inherited Old Mother Hubbard’s house. All of the major infrastructure goodies have already been announced by Rann and Foley, and when it comes time to cut the ribbon, Jay will be reminded that it was his predecessors that brought the projects about. The Left faction will demand that any loose change found during a Treasury rummage be spent on improving the rights of injured workers and the like. It isn’t all bad news for the Government, however.
While it is unlikely that the Government will be able to announce any huge capital projects in the lead up to the next election, nor will the Opposition. The departure of Rann, Holloway and Foley and potentially Hill and Conlon will give the new team a greater chance of distancing itself from unpopular past decisions. New faces will count for little, however, unless symbolic and inexpensive methods of changing direction are discovered. Gay marriage anyone?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Shotgun wedding
While debate continues to rage about the identity of the “leaker” at the centre of the “shoe-gate” scandal, it is clear that the leak was designed to prevent the all powerful Right faction from reneging on its support for Weatherill. The Right had agonised over this decision for approximately six month, vacillating between Rau, Snelling and Weatherill. For the Right, anointing a talented Left wing candidate is analogous to a groom deciding whether or not to marry a beautiful bride spawned from a family of hillbillies. While the wife is the one you will be going to bed with every night, every Christmas you will be stuck with the in-laws. Unfortunately for the Right, it only took until the father of the Bride speech for the whole arrangement to fall apart at the seams.
For the past ten years, Jay Weatherill has been the darling of the Left, destined for great things. The faction had swallowed its medicine dutifully, acquiescing when the Right enforced its will regarding WorkCover reform etc. In order to be able to sleep at night, many factional members would have rocked backwards and forwards chanting “Jay will change it, Jay will change it”. Unfortunately, however, such feverish obsession has meant that they were unable to contain themselves at the crucial moment. Instead of letting Malinauskas and Snelling deliver the news covertly, a media spectacle was created, irreparably tarnishing the prize that Jay had sought for so long. The recent Gillard experience has shown how important an untainted ascension is.
When the initial leadership coup story broke, much mention was made about Rann standing down before State Convention. One only needs to recall the scenes of last years Convention to understand the Left’s motivation for impatiently seeking this timeline. Not only would the inevitable “love fest” provide Jay with plenty of photo opportunities fronting his adoring masses, but also the Left would wish to use the momentum of such occasion to force policy reform in their pet areas (WorkCover, Gay Marriage). Allowing Rann to stay on until March would have ensured policy status quo for another year. Following the botched coup, however, the Parliamentary ALP is in a state of fracture and chaos, with bitter recriminations being launched from all corners. The last thing the party wants is a weekend of the media filming the its internal machinations.
While it is unlikely that we will ever know whether Jay Weatherill had any prior knowledge of the leak, Mike Rann’s public demeanour towards his deposer speaks volumes. Rann, the consummate media manipulator, has gone out of his way to marginalise the Premier-in-Waiting. The party and the Government cannot afford nine more weeks of hostility. One wonders if Mike is answering Jay’s calls yet? Where is a News of the World journalist when you need one?
For the past ten years, Jay Weatherill has been the darling of the Left, destined for great things. The faction had swallowed its medicine dutifully, acquiescing when the Right enforced its will regarding WorkCover reform etc. In order to be able to sleep at night, many factional members would have rocked backwards and forwards chanting “Jay will change it, Jay will change it”. Unfortunately, however, such feverish obsession has meant that they were unable to contain themselves at the crucial moment. Instead of letting Malinauskas and Snelling deliver the news covertly, a media spectacle was created, irreparably tarnishing the prize that Jay had sought for so long. The recent Gillard experience has shown how important an untainted ascension is.
When the initial leadership coup story broke, much mention was made about Rann standing down before State Convention. One only needs to recall the scenes of last years Convention to understand the Left’s motivation for impatiently seeking this timeline. Not only would the inevitable “love fest” provide Jay with plenty of photo opportunities fronting his adoring masses, but also the Left would wish to use the momentum of such occasion to force policy reform in their pet areas (WorkCover, Gay Marriage). Allowing Rann to stay on until March would have ensured policy status quo for another year. Following the botched coup, however, the Parliamentary ALP is in a state of fracture and chaos, with bitter recriminations being launched from all corners. The last thing the party wants is a weekend of the media filming the its internal machinations.
While it is unlikely that we will ever know whether Jay Weatherill had any prior knowledge of the leak, Mike Rann’s public demeanour towards his deposer speaks volumes. Rann, the consummate media manipulator, has gone out of his way to marginalise the Premier-in-Waiting. The party and the Government cannot afford nine more weeks of hostility. One wonders if Mike is answering Jay’s calls yet? Where is a News of the World journalist when you need one?
Monday, August 15, 2011
Ian Hunter Denial
In relation to my previous blog post, it is important to add that Ian Hunter has vigorously denied any involvement in the leaking of the meeting to the media of the details of the Mike Rann meeting.
As the situation currently stands, Mike Rann has impugned the reputation of the entire Parliamentary Labor Party by failing to specifically identify who he believes the leaker to be. Rob Lucas publicly suggested that it could be Leon Bignell. The current witch hunt won't be over until someone takes the fall. Time will tell.
Also, I should add that neither Bignell or Hunter could be described as having low IQs. Hunter, in particular, has an Honours degree in Science. Having said that, I don't think Mike Rann is in his most generous mood.
As the situation currently stands, Mike Rann has impugned the reputation of the entire Parliamentary Labor Party by failing to specifically identify who he believes the leaker to be. Rob Lucas publicly suggested that it could be Leon Bignell. The current witch hunt won't be over until someone takes the fall. Time will tell.
Also, I should add that neither Bignell or Hunter could be described as having low IQs. Hunter, in particular, has an Honours degree in Science. Having said that, I don't think Mike Rann is in his most generous mood.
Hunter becomes the hunted
Ever since the failed Rann coup story broke in the media, there has been debate over the identity of the leaker. I can now confirm that the person responsible for leaking this information to the ABC was former State Secretary and current seat warmer in the Upper House, Ian Hunter MLC. (Hunter has since denied any involvement.) Hunter is a member of the left faction and close ally of Premier-in-waiting Jay Weatherill. Initially, I discounted the Left of being responsible for the leak, mainly because it had caused such damage to their hero, Jay. Having said that, it is also highly unlikely that anyone from the Right would have risked incurring the wrath of the SDA. The fact that Michael Atkinson ruefully anticipated that the leaker will probably receive a promotion strongly suggests that the leaker was part of the Left faction. The Right would not publicly criticize one of its own in such a manner. I must admit that I totally underestimated the degree of stupidity of which the Left is capable of. Now that we know who leaked the information, we should examine why he leaked it.
In the aftermath of the failed leadership coup, it was reported that Ian Hunter was part of a transition team assisting Weatherill plan his ascent to the top job. Given that Hunter is such an integral part of Jay’s inner circle, it must be asked; was the leak ordered by Jay as a way of speeding up Rann’s departure? It certainly makes sense. How else would Hunter have possessed the information of the meeting, if not through a conversation with Jay? I assure you that Hunter is not on Jack or Peter Malinauskas’s Christmas card list, and from recent comments I doubt Mike Rann engaged in many deep and meaningful conversations with him either. This leaves only two possibilities; either Jay ordered Hunter to leak the info to the media or Hunter acted autonomously in conflict with the instructions of his factional leader. Neither option reflects generously on Weatherill.
If Hunter was acting upon the instructions of Jay, then both of them failed to anticipate the manner in which Mike Rann would react to their actions. Anyone that thought that a political animal with the nouse of Rann would meekly retreat when confronted with a threat is lacking in even the most basic political judgment. Surely, if Jay was part of the plot, he should have had some contingency plans. A quote from The Usual Suspects comes to mind. “How do you shoot the devil in the back. What if you miss?”. I think it is unlikely that Weatherill would have sanctioned the leaking unless he was prepared to challenge the Premier if things went wrong. Things did go horribly wrong, and Jay seemed like a deer in the headlights. This adds weight to the argument that Hunter acted alone. This does not bode well for the future.
The assorted crazies within the Left faction of the ALP have been locked in a box by the Right for the last 15 years. It appears that the anointing of one of their own as the incoming Premier, however, has opened Pandora’s box, releasing an array of nut jobs from the shackles. For the past ten years, lefties like Hunter and Bob Sneath would have been impotently muttering and whinging to each other at SA Unions BBQ’s about the nasty Right faction and their abominable WorkCover laws. For the Left, the slightest whiff of power has been akin to a starving dog catching wind of a juicy steak. You wouldn’t expect the dog to behave rationally, and nor should you expect the Left. This is the problem that Jay faces. He must restrain the members of his own faction, whilst still appeasing the Right faction who is responsible for his ascent. With the Hunter situation, does he punish Ian for causing such damage to the party, or reward him for being a loyal servant over so many years? Time will tell.
In the aftermath of the failed leadership coup, it was reported that Ian Hunter was part of a transition team assisting Weatherill plan his ascent to the top job. Given that Hunter is such an integral part of Jay’s inner circle, it must be asked; was the leak ordered by Jay as a way of speeding up Rann’s departure? It certainly makes sense. How else would Hunter have possessed the information of the meeting, if not through a conversation with Jay? I assure you that Hunter is not on Jack or Peter Malinauskas’s Christmas card list, and from recent comments I doubt Mike Rann engaged in many deep and meaningful conversations with him either. This leaves only two possibilities; either Jay ordered Hunter to leak the info to the media or Hunter acted autonomously in conflict with the instructions of his factional leader. Neither option reflects generously on Weatherill.
If Hunter was acting upon the instructions of Jay, then both of them failed to anticipate the manner in which Mike Rann would react to their actions. Anyone that thought that a political animal with the nouse of Rann would meekly retreat when confronted with a threat is lacking in even the most basic political judgment. Surely, if Jay was part of the plot, he should have had some contingency plans. A quote from The Usual Suspects comes to mind. “How do you shoot the devil in the back. What if you miss?”. I think it is unlikely that Weatherill would have sanctioned the leaking unless he was prepared to challenge the Premier if things went wrong. Things did go horribly wrong, and Jay seemed like a deer in the headlights. This adds weight to the argument that Hunter acted alone. This does not bode well for the future.
The assorted crazies within the Left faction of the ALP have been locked in a box by the Right for the last 15 years. It appears that the anointing of one of their own as the incoming Premier, however, has opened Pandora’s box, releasing an array of nut jobs from the shackles. For the past ten years, lefties like Hunter and Bob Sneath would have been impotently muttering and whinging to each other at SA Unions BBQ’s about the nasty Right faction and their abominable WorkCover laws. For the Left, the slightest whiff of power has been akin to a starving dog catching wind of a juicy steak. You wouldn’t expect the dog to behave rationally, and nor should you expect the Left. This is the problem that Jay faces. He must restrain the members of his own faction, whilst still appeasing the Right faction who is responsible for his ascent. With the Hunter situation, does he punish Ian for causing such damage to the party, or reward him for being a loyal servant over so many years? Time will tell.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Bleak House
Anyone seeking for reasons behind the decay of the ALP needn’t look very far. For much too long, party power brokers have treated Upper Houses as an elephant’s graveyard. The Legislative Council and the Senate are a retirement a village for unionists who have ‘paid their dues”. Dinosaurs like Bob Sneath and John Gazzola are soon to be joined by some young blood, relatively speaking, in 57 year old leftie Gerry Kandelaars. Yet again, powerbrokers are ticking off their favours list instead of considering what is good for party, the Government and the State.
From the outset, let me say that Gerry Kandelaars has contributed much to the Labor movement, and probably would have made a valuable Parliamentarian if he had been pre-selected 10 years ago. As a 57 year old, however, his pre-selecting is baffling. Surely he will need to spend at least the first four years of his eight year term “learning the ropes”. Following this period, it wouldn’t make much sense to give him a ministry in his 61st year, because he is unlikely to serve another term from 65-73. It is unlikely that the ALP will even be in Government during much of his term. Why pre-select such a person to be a glorified seat warmer for eight years?
The decision is particularly baffling given the absence of Ministerial talent for the ALP in the Upper House. Gail Gago and Russell Wortley are the existing ministers, and neither could be described as superstars destined to more senior portfolios. The retirement of Holloway, Zollo and Sneath in 2014 will only worsen the current situation. Managing an Upper House requires skill, especially given that the Government does not hold a majority. The manner in which candidates are elected to the Upper House, however, explains the reason ALP pre-selects in the way it does.
Legislative Councillors are elected on proportional basis, not individually. For this reason, the ALP pre-selects people that would probably be unelectable on their merits. Gail Gago, for example failed on numerous occasions to win a lower house seat. Bernie Finnigan would have required gastric banding to even stand a chance. The LC is the domain of the fat and the socially awkward within the ALP. While these people are likely to be incapable of winning a lower house seat, they are capable of earning the favours of the factional powerbrokers. Once they have attained their seat on the red couches, they sit in relative obscurity for their entire term, occasionally raising their snouts from the trough to raise a grievance. This is a ridiculous situation.
Upper Houses, both Federally and at a State level, should be used to pre-select candidates that might not have the charisma to hold marginal seats, but have the brains and the diplomacy to navigate bills through the hostile house. They should also be future leaders, who can use the stability of their tenure to build the party. Paul Holloway, for example, is not the most personable politician, but his eye for detail and skill made him a valuable contributor over many years. Whilst I abhor the Liberal Party, they ensure that they preselect Senators such as Nick Minchin, Simon Birmingham etc whose names are actually known outside of political circles. The toughest question in any quiz night would be; name four South Australian ALP senators. This should not be the case.
The fortunes of the ALP will continue to deteriorate unless they begin pre-selecting candidates capable of becoming future leaders and/or ministers. Fortunately, it appears that highly capable female candidates are in line for seats in Ramsey and Port Adelaide, but given the amount of media scrutiny that exists with by-elections, this is hardly surprising. Meritorious candidates are only pre-selected for the ALP when they stand a chance of losing (marginals, by-elections). Candidates like Chloe Fox, Amanda Rishworth, Nick Champion and Grace Portolesi are great, but they are a minor swing away from being out on their ass. The holders of the safest of seats, such as those in the Upper House, determine the future of the party, because they will be around for the long haul (apart from Gerry Kandelaars, who is one term away from retirement age).
From the outset, let me say that Gerry Kandelaars has contributed much to the Labor movement, and probably would have made a valuable Parliamentarian if he had been pre-selected 10 years ago. As a 57 year old, however, his pre-selecting is baffling. Surely he will need to spend at least the first four years of his eight year term “learning the ropes”. Following this period, it wouldn’t make much sense to give him a ministry in his 61st year, because he is unlikely to serve another term from 65-73. It is unlikely that the ALP will even be in Government during much of his term. Why pre-select such a person to be a glorified seat warmer for eight years?
The decision is particularly baffling given the absence of Ministerial talent for the ALP in the Upper House. Gail Gago and Russell Wortley are the existing ministers, and neither could be described as superstars destined to more senior portfolios. The retirement of Holloway, Zollo and Sneath in 2014 will only worsen the current situation. Managing an Upper House requires skill, especially given that the Government does not hold a majority. The manner in which candidates are elected to the Upper House, however, explains the reason ALP pre-selects in the way it does.
Legislative Councillors are elected on proportional basis, not individually. For this reason, the ALP pre-selects people that would probably be unelectable on their merits. Gail Gago, for example failed on numerous occasions to win a lower house seat. Bernie Finnigan would have required gastric banding to even stand a chance. The LC is the domain of the fat and the socially awkward within the ALP. While these people are likely to be incapable of winning a lower house seat, they are capable of earning the favours of the factional powerbrokers. Once they have attained their seat on the red couches, they sit in relative obscurity for their entire term, occasionally raising their snouts from the trough to raise a grievance. This is a ridiculous situation.
Upper Houses, both Federally and at a State level, should be used to pre-select candidates that might not have the charisma to hold marginal seats, but have the brains and the diplomacy to navigate bills through the hostile house. They should also be future leaders, who can use the stability of their tenure to build the party. Paul Holloway, for example, is not the most personable politician, but his eye for detail and skill made him a valuable contributor over many years. Whilst I abhor the Liberal Party, they ensure that they preselect Senators such as Nick Minchin, Simon Birmingham etc whose names are actually known outside of political circles. The toughest question in any quiz night would be; name four South Australian ALP senators. This should not be the case.
The fortunes of the ALP will continue to deteriorate unless they begin pre-selecting candidates capable of becoming future leaders and/or ministers. Fortunately, it appears that highly capable female candidates are in line for seats in Ramsey and Port Adelaide, but given the amount of media scrutiny that exists with by-elections, this is hardly surprising. Meritorious candidates are only pre-selected for the ALP when they stand a chance of losing (marginals, by-elections). Candidates like Chloe Fox, Amanda Rishworth, Nick Champion and Grace Portolesi are great, but they are a minor swing away from being out on their ass. The holders of the safest of seats, such as those in the Upper House, determine the future of the party, because they will be around for the long haul (apart from Gerry Kandelaars, who is one term away from retirement age).
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
United in chaos
On 891 Breakfast this morning, Premier in waiting Jay Weatherill said that he only wanted to take the leadership of the ALP when the entire party was united behind him. Whilst it may be the case that both major factions have pragmatically decided to back his leadership, it is ludicrous to suggest that the entire party is pleased with this scenario. There is clear evidence of disunity in the mess that has been the last week.
The chaos within the ALP in the past week can be directly linked to one event; the leaking of the Rann-Snelling-Malinauskas meeting to Angelique Johnson on Friday afternoon. While it appears that Peter M was blabbing details of the impending meeting to all in sundry, it was only in the interests of a select few to leak this information to the media. Rann, Snelling, Malinauskas and Weatherill have all been tarnished by the premature announcement of the internal machinations surrounding the leadership. While it is possible that an eager left faction member couldn’t contain their excitement, it is my assertion that the only person/group with any motivation to leak the deal was John Rau or his supporter group. If this is the case, there is clear evidence of a divided Labor Unity.
We know from media reports that the Lithuanian Adonis, Peter Malinauskas, informed John Rau on Friday afternoon that he had not been anointed successor. It is not beyond belief to suggest that upon hearing this news, Rau, a borderline ego-maniac, responded to this news by venting his spleen to his array of supporters. Amongst this group, at least one of them must have realized that a tactical leaking of the story of the year would unleash merry hell. With the media convention of protecting ones sources, such chaos could be let loose in anonymity. Of course, it is possible that Malinauskas or Snelling leaked the story in retaliation for being abused by Mike, but even I doubt they could be so stupid.
Grudges in the ALP can last a lifetime. I am living proof of this fact. To suggest that it is possible for Right faction acolytes to bury over a decade of burning hatred towards factional warrior Jay Weatherill purely out of political pragmatism is ludicrous. People like Tom Kenyon, Tom Koutsantonis and co may perhaps accept the political reality of the situation that they are faced with, but in their hearts and souls they still harbor deep animosity towards “Leftie Jay”. While perhaps the Right faction will be able to exercise the discipline to present a show of external discipline, in the shadows and the smoky corners there will be mutterings of dissent.
In the coming months, Jay Weatherill will not only face white anting from elements of the Right faction, but it is also likely that he will come into conflict with his own Left faction. Unless he brings to the Premiership bulging sacks of gold and jewels, Jay will be facing a tight budgetary position AND a screaming union movement asking for back flips. Rest assured, if Jay caves to the left, he will face the wrath of the Right. If he doesn’t cave the Left, he will be held responsible for his inability to control “his faction”. It is an unenviable position.
The chaos within the ALP in the past week can be directly linked to one event; the leaking of the Rann-Snelling-Malinauskas meeting to Angelique Johnson on Friday afternoon. While it appears that Peter M was blabbing details of the impending meeting to all in sundry, it was only in the interests of a select few to leak this information to the media. Rann, Snelling, Malinauskas and Weatherill have all been tarnished by the premature announcement of the internal machinations surrounding the leadership. While it is possible that an eager left faction member couldn’t contain their excitement, it is my assertion that the only person/group with any motivation to leak the deal was John Rau or his supporter group. If this is the case, there is clear evidence of a divided Labor Unity.
We know from media reports that the Lithuanian Adonis, Peter Malinauskas, informed John Rau on Friday afternoon that he had not been anointed successor. It is not beyond belief to suggest that upon hearing this news, Rau, a borderline ego-maniac, responded to this news by venting his spleen to his array of supporters. Amongst this group, at least one of them must have realized that a tactical leaking of the story of the year would unleash merry hell. With the media convention of protecting ones sources, such chaos could be let loose in anonymity. Of course, it is possible that Malinauskas or Snelling leaked the story in retaliation for being abused by Mike, but even I doubt they could be so stupid.
Grudges in the ALP can last a lifetime. I am living proof of this fact. To suggest that it is possible for Right faction acolytes to bury over a decade of burning hatred towards factional warrior Jay Weatherill purely out of political pragmatism is ludicrous. People like Tom Kenyon, Tom Koutsantonis and co may perhaps accept the political reality of the situation that they are faced with, but in their hearts and souls they still harbor deep animosity towards “Leftie Jay”. While perhaps the Right faction will be able to exercise the discipline to present a show of external discipline, in the shadows and the smoky corners there will be mutterings of dissent.
In the coming months, Jay Weatherill will not only face white anting from elements of the Right faction, but it is also likely that he will come into conflict with his own Left faction. Unless he brings to the Premiership bulging sacks of gold and jewels, Jay will be facing a tight budgetary position AND a screaming union movement asking for back flips. Rest assured, if Jay caves to the left, he will face the wrath of the Right. If he doesn’t cave the Left, he will be held responsible for his inability to control “his faction”. It is an unenviable position.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Devolution
As I write, Mike Rann has just addressed a press conference where he has announced the timeline of his retirement. In recent weeks former leader of the Upper House Paul Holloway has also announced his retirement, and one suspects that Health Minister John Hill and Big Kev Foley are on their last legs as well. While many are referring to this as party “regeneration”, I would suggest that party “deterioration” is a more fitting term. Regeneration suggests the replacement of old and fatigued war horses with young thoroughbreds. It is more of a case, however, of replacing horses with donkeys, as the new breed of political animal within the ALP is a totally different species to their predecessors.
Mike Rann was often because of his moniker “Media Mike” because he used his previous career in journalism to “spin”. It is inevitable that a politician will bring skills from their previous career to Parliament. The problem with the new generation of ALP MPs is that the majority have never worked for any extended period outside of politics. Whilst John Hill was a teacher and a lawyer, Paul Holloway an engineer, Kevin Foley a corporate executive, the new breed of Snelling and Koutsantonis and Kenyon never developed careers outside of the union movement. Of course they worked diverse “jobs” such as taxi drivers and jackaroos, but a career involves extended devotion and development of expertise. Most importantly, a career gives a person an ability to attain specialist knowledge which can be used as a representative in parliament. Why are established careers no longer considered vital for pre-selection?
The answer unfortunately is that politics is now considered a career in itself. Councils across the state are filled with pimple faced babes in pin striped swaddling cloths. Party pre-selection is determined by a small handful of people, and the ambitious realise this. Everybody knows that the path to North Terrace involves building personal relationships with the king makers, such as Malinauskas, Farrell, Koutsantonis and Quirke (as far as the right goes). Pre-selection is made based on who owes who, who will scratch who’s back etc. While I wasn’t involved in politics when Rann and Foley were pre-selected, I venture to guess that the process was at least slightly more rigorous. What are the problems with such ad hoc and unmeritorious pre-selections?
When a candidate’s only life experience is within the political field, they have neither the knowledge or the people skills to relate to the common man. Budding politicians rarely associate with anyone outside of politics. They watch the West Wing, dine at party fundraisers, letter box and door knock together. If you only associate with a small micocosm of the community, you begin to think that how they think is how everyone thinks. A staff room in a political office is not the same as a staff room in a school or a hospital. This is why we are seeing the emergence of robotic politicians such as Julia Gillard, a person who cannot speak or laugh in a natural manner. The public is becoming aware of this phenomenon, which has had an immediate impact on politicos; reverse engineering of a career.
In the past year, Michael Brown and Stephen Mullighan, two senior political operatives, have left the political field to start jobs in the private sector. Whilst it is possible that they have tired of the political grind, it is more likely that they are padding their CV for the imminent jump into Parliament. Many vacancies exist for the Legislative Council, which would suit Brown, and Mullighan will likely run for a safe western suburbs seat e.g. Lee or Port Adelaide. They perhaps fear their candidate biography listing as “political adviser” and nothing else. While they are undoubtedly performing legitimate work in their new roles, they have still grown up in politics and it will take more than a couple of years to cleanse them of politico-speak.
Mike Rann’s ire when confronted by Peter Malinauskas and Jack Snelling was probably caused by a number of factors. I suggest that at least one of them was a disdain for the quality of talent that is readying itself to replace him. Wisdom is acquired over the years, through experience and toil. An army of inbred political careerists lack the wisdom required to run a state. He knows this. The public knows this too, and will render their judgement in a few years.
Mike Rann was often because of his moniker “Media Mike” because he used his previous career in journalism to “spin”. It is inevitable that a politician will bring skills from their previous career to Parliament. The problem with the new generation of ALP MPs is that the majority have never worked for any extended period outside of politics. Whilst John Hill was a teacher and a lawyer, Paul Holloway an engineer, Kevin Foley a corporate executive, the new breed of Snelling and Koutsantonis and Kenyon never developed careers outside of the union movement. Of course they worked diverse “jobs” such as taxi drivers and jackaroos, but a career involves extended devotion and development of expertise. Most importantly, a career gives a person an ability to attain specialist knowledge which can be used as a representative in parliament. Why are established careers no longer considered vital for pre-selection?
The answer unfortunately is that politics is now considered a career in itself. Councils across the state are filled with pimple faced babes in pin striped swaddling cloths. Party pre-selection is determined by a small handful of people, and the ambitious realise this. Everybody knows that the path to North Terrace involves building personal relationships with the king makers, such as Malinauskas, Farrell, Koutsantonis and Quirke (as far as the right goes). Pre-selection is made based on who owes who, who will scratch who’s back etc. While I wasn’t involved in politics when Rann and Foley were pre-selected, I venture to guess that the process was at least slightly more rigorous. What are the problems with such ad hoc and unmeritorious pre-selections?
When a candidate’s only life experience is within the political field, they have neither the knowledge or the people skills to relate to the common man. Budding politicians rarely associate with anyone outside of politics. They watch the West Wing, dine at party fundraisers, letter box and door knock together. If you only associate with a small micocosm of the community, you begin to think that how they think is how everyone thinks. A staff room in a political office is not the same as a staff room in a school or a hospital. This is why we are seeing the emergence of robotic politicians such as Julia Gillard, a person who cannot speak or laugh in a natural manner. The public is becoming aware of this phenomenon, which has had an immediate impact on politicos; reverse engineering of a career.
In the past year, Michael Brown and Stephen Mullighan, two senior political operatives, have left the political field to start jobs in the private sector. Whilst it is possible that they have tired of the political grind, it is more likely that they are padding their CV for the imminent jump into Parliament. Many vacancies exist for the Legislative Council, which would suit Brown, and Mullighan will likely run for a safe western suburbs seat e.g. Lee or Port Adelaide. They perhaps fear their candidate biography listing as “political adviser” and nothing else. While they are undoubtedly performing legitimate work in their new roles, they have still grown up in politics and it will take more than a couple of years to cleanse them of politico-speak.
Mike Rann’s ire when confronted by Peter Malinauskas and Jack Snelling was probably caused by a number of factors. I suggest that at least one of them was a disdain for the quality of talent that is readying itself to replace him. Wisdom is acquired over the years, through experience and toil. An army of inbred political careerists lack the wisdom required to run a state. He knows this. The public knows this too, and will render their judgement in a few years.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Don’s Party
In the past week the power and influence of the Catholic Boys club of the ALP Right faction has been subject of much discussion. The Right faction began as a group of four devout Catholics in a Chinese restaurant in the 1980s. The story of how such an unrepresentative group has managed to become the dominant force in SA politics is an interesting one. As a former member of the faction, I am able to provide significant insight into this issue.
From the outset, it must be stated that changing demographics of the workforce in SA combined with the party structure of the ALP is a major determinant of the Right faction’s rise to power. The Right faction controls the Shop Assistants Union, the largest union in the State. The influence that a union has over the ALP is determined by the number of members it has. While the manufacturing sector struggles to compete with cheaper overseas competitors, the retail sector continues to grow. Formerly powerful unions like the AMWU are forced to go, cap in hand, to the Right faction for protection, becoming “outsiders” within the Right’s all encompassing tent. (As I have mentioned before in previous articles, the structure of the party and the disproportionate influence of unions is a major cause of the rot within the ALP.) The welcoming of “outsiders” into the Right has been the most clever (or devious) tactic responsible for its current strength.
While the core of the Right faction is devout Catholics, they have always painted themselves as a “broad church” welcoming people of opposing views. In 2000, when I first joined the party, the Unity faction had recently welcomed in an influx of former members of the Centre-Left faction, the former dominant faction of the 80s and 90s. The Centre Left split in three ways, with the more conservative joining the Right, the more radical joining the Left, and a small number (John Hill, Mike Rann) remaining unaligned. My first contact with the Right faction was through progressive, former Centre Lefties that were now “Right faction” members. A high percentage of this group was intelligent and progressive women. As an atheist with moderate left wing leanings, the Right seemed like a safer option compared to the more radical and scary Left. Over the next ten years, however, I came to realize that while the core of the Right welcomed the numbers and effort of the more progressive, ultimately the spoils of power were handed out those with the traditional conservative background.
During this period, I witnessed various talented progressive members of the Right faction being passed over for pre-selection at the expense of either conservative Right members or those that are unlikely to make waves. At a Federal level, Kate Ellis and Amanda Rishworth are possible exceptions, coming from the more progressive movement of the Right. At the State level, star candidates such as Chloe Fox are examples of “outsiders” being pre-selected. It should be noted, however, that none of these women hold seats that would be considered “safe” in a traditional sense. Dana Wortley was an “outsider” but only received number 3 spot on Senate ticket. The most prominent example of an “outsider” trying to disobey the core of the faction was Senator Linda Kirk, a progressive and free thinking Senator that made the mistake of crossing Don Farrell’s wife. Periodically, when the natives get restless, a bone is thrown to appease them. The AMWU, for example, had former official Paul McMahon appointed to the IR Commission and Alan Sibbons elected. I suspect these moves were made to appease a restless manufacturing union. Again, however, none of these positions could be considered plum and safe postings.
The fate of Linda Kirk is analogous to the fate of pro-life women as a whole within the Right faction. When I joined the Right, as I mentioned earlier, there was a plethora of intelligent and progressive women. These women are now engineers, lawyers, economists, psychologists and journalists. They were lost to politics, I suspect, in large part due to the heavy handed approach at Young Labor by the more conservative elements of the faction. The Left faction at AYL would often cleverly drive a wedge between the Right by moving pro-life motions. It only took a few feverish scripture based rants by SDA organizers to either disenchant these young women. Switching factions within the ALP is not really an option, so the party is abandoned entirely.
The deterioration of talent in the ALP, through pre-selections, ministerial staffing and the exodus of women, is now evident on a major scale for the first time. During the life of the Rann Government, the only senior and high profile acolyte of the Right was Michael Atkinson. It is arguable that he was one of the most unpopular Ministers in recent memory. The recent reshuffle has elevated four dyed in the wool Catholic Right SDA boys, Jack Snelling, Tom Kenyon, Bernard Finnigan and Tom Koutsantonis. It will soon be readily apparent how the public reacts to the social and political views of these men.
From the outset, it must be stated that changing demographics of the workforce in SA combined with the party structure of the ALP is a major determinant of the Right faction’s rise to power. The Right faction controls the Shop Assistants Union, the largest union in the State. The influence that a union has over the ALP is determined by the number of members it has. While the manufacturing sector struggles to compete with cheaper overseas competitors, the retail sector continues to grow. Formerly powerful unions like the AMWU are forced to go, cap in hand, to the Right faction for protection, becoming “outsiders” within the Right’s all encompassing tent. (As I have mentioned before in previous articles, the structure of the party and the disproportionate influence of unions is a major cause of the rot within the ALP.) The welcoming of “outsiders” into the Right has been the most clever (or devious) tactic responsible for its current strength.
While the core of the Right faction is devout Catholics, they have always painted themselves as a “broad church” welcoming people of opposing views. In 2000, when I first joined the party, the Unity faction had recently welcomed in an influx of former members of the Centre-Left faction, the former dominant faction of the 80s and 90s. The Centre Left split in three ways, with the more conservative joining the Right, the more radical joining the Left, and a small number (John Hill, Mike Rann) remaining unaligned. My first contact with the Right faction was through progressive, former Centre Lefties that were now “Right faction” members. A high percentage of this group was intelligent and progressive women. As an atheist with moderate left wing leanings, the Right seemed like a safer option compared to the more radical and scary Left. Over the next ten years, however, I came to realize that while the core of the Right welcomed the numbers and effort of the more progressive, ultimately the spoils of power were handed out those with the traditional conservative background.
During this period, I witnessed various talented progressive members of the Right faction being passed over for pre-selection at the expense of either conservative Right members or those that are unlikely to make waves. At a Federal level, Kate Ellis and Amanda Rishworth are possible exceptions, coming from the more progressive movement of the Right. At the State level, star candidates such as Chloe Fox are examples of “outsiders” being pre-selected. It should be noted, however, that none of these women hold seats that would be considered “safe” in a traditional sense. Dana Wortley was an “outsider” but only received number 3 spot on Senate ticket. The most prominent example of an “outsider” trying to disobey the core of the faction was Senator Linda Kirk, a progressive and free thinking Senator that made the mistake of crossing Don Farrell’s wife. Periodically, when the natives get restless, a bone is thrown to appease them. The AMWU, for example, had former official Paul McMahon appointed to the IR Commission and Alan Sibbons elected. I suspect these moves were made to appease a restless manufacturing union. Again, however, none of these positions could be considered plum and safe postings.
The fate of Linda Kirk is analogous to the fate of pro-life women as a whole within the Right faction. When I joined the Right, as I mentioned earlier, there was a plethora of intelligent and progressive women. These women are now engineers, lawyers, economists, psychologists and journalists. They were lost to politics, I suspect, in large part due to the heavy handed approach at Young Labor by the more conservative elements of the faction. The Left faction at AYL would often cleverly drive a wedge between the Right by moving pro-life motions. It only took a few feverish scripture based rants by SDA organizers to either disenchant these young women. Switching factions within the ALP is not really an option, so the party is abandoned entirely.
The deterioration of talent in the ALP, through pre-selections, ministerial staffing and the exodus of women, is now evident on a major scale for the first time. During the life of the Rann Government, the only senior and high profile acolyte of the Right was Michael Atkinson. It is arguable that he was one of the most unpopular Ministers in recent memory. The recent reshuffle has elevated four dyed in the wool Catholic Right SDA boys, Jack Snelling, Tom Kenyon, Bernard Finnigan and Tom Koutsantonis. It will soon be readily apparent how the public reacts to the social and political views of these men.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Left out in the cold
Much of the immediate coverage of the Rann Ministry reshuffle focussed upon the overwhelming dominance of the Right faction, which I would argue isn’t really a new story, nor is it the big issue arising from the front bench “regeneration”. The Right or Unity has had numerical supremacy over party decisions for some time, as evidenced by the recent ALP State Convention. I would suggest that the most surprising aspect of yesterday’s caucus was the timidity and meek acquiescence of the Left faction, despite its various threats and sabre rattling over the past month. Upon re-examination of the past four years, however, the Left’s capitulation should have been anticipated.
As a former member of the Right faction, I am often most outspoken about the failings of the bachelor boys from Kent Town. Let there be no mistake, however, that I find the insipid hypocrisy of the Left faction no less despicable. Spared from the numerical advantage, and therefore the onus of making decisions, the “socialist” branch of the Labor party enjoys commentating and sniping from the moral high ground. In the lead up to controversial decisions, they will often threaten to become martyrs, crossing the floor or resigning their membership. This was the case during the WorkCover debate, and it is the case again now. Ultimately, when sacrifice is required, the Steph Key’s and Frances Bedford’s of this world retreat to whatever hole they came from, and return to closeted remarks about the glorious day when Jay is Premier. In politics, talk is cheap unless followed by actions.
The Left is swiftly becoming the faction that cried wolf, and the Right knows it. Their persistent inability to follow their threats with meaningful action means the Right can joyfully frolick in the forest at night, unafraid of any lurking predator. My former colleagues and I would often speculate about the cunning plan that Jay Weatherill must be plotting to ensure his ascent to Premier. In light of recent events, however, I must suspect that Weatherill is the political equivalent of Baldrick from Blackadder, or worse, the ALP’s Peter Costello. It takes ruthlessness and courage to steal the ring of power from the holder. Jay is at risk of being relegated forever to the shadows, yearning for “his precious”.
While the Right did assert its power with almost faultless execution, Mike Rann appears to be the fly in the ointment. Firstly, I suspect that factional operatives did not expect Kevin Foley to receive such important and high profile portfolios. Rann, forever mindful of protecting his own grip on power, obviously felt it was in his best interests ensure that Big Kev continued to occupy an important chair at the Cabinet table. Rann also used the portfolio allocation as another opportunity to double cross long time nemesis Tom Koutsantonis. Kouts was anticipating receipt of the IR portfolio, but this went to Buckets Bernie Finnigan. There is plenty of wile and cunning in old dog Rann, and I wouldn’t count him out yet, especially with Rau (a man with conflicting allegiances between Right faction and Rann) as his new, loyal Deputy.
PS The boys club culture of the ALP and Right faction has been an issue that I have discussed at length in the past. It perhaps merits a revisit, but I am going to wait for events to unfold a little further.
As a former member of the Right faction, I am often most outspoken about the failings of the bachelor boys from Kent Town. Let there be no mistake, however, that I find the insipid hypocrisy of the Left faction no less despicable. Spared from the numerical advantage, and therefore the onus of making decisions, the “socialist” branch of the Labor party enjoys commentating and sniping from the moral high ground. In the lead up to controversial decisions, they will often threaten to become martyrs, crossing the floor or resigning their membership. This was the case during the WorkCover debate, and it is the case again now. Ultimately, when sacrifice is required, the Steph Key’s and Frances Bedford’s of this world retreat to whatever hole they came from, and return to closeted remarks about the glorious day when Jay is Premier. In politics, talk is cheap unless followed by actions.
The Left is swiftly becoming the faction that cried wolf, and the Right knows it. Their persistent inability to follow their threats with meaningful action means the Right can joyfully frolick in the forest at night, unafraid of any lurking predator. My former colleagues and I would often speculate about the cunning plan that Jay Weatherill must be plotting to ensure his ascent to Premier. In light of recent events, however, I must suspect that Weatherill is the political equivalent of Baldrick from Blackadder, or worse, the ALP’s Peter Costello. It takes ruthlessness and courage to steal the ring of power from the holder. Jay is at risk of being relegated forever to the shadows, yearning for “his precious”.
While the Right did assert its power with almost faultless execution, Mike Rann appears to be the fly in the ointment. Firstly, I suspect that factional operatives did not expect Kevin Foley to receive such important and high profile portfolios. Rann, forever mindful of protecting his own grip on power, obviously felt it was in his best interests ensure that Big Kev continued to occupy an important chair at the Cabinet table. Rann also used the portfolio allocation as another opportunity to double cross long time nemesis Tom Koutsantonis. Kouts was anticipating receipt of the IR portfolio, but this went to Buckets Bernie Finnigan. There is plenty of wile and cunning in old dog Rann, and I wouldn’t count him out yet, especially with Rau (a man with conflicting allegiances between Right faction and Rann) as his new, loyal Deputy.
PS The boys club culture of the ALP and Right faction has been an issue that I have discussed at length in the past. It perhaps merits a revisit, but I am going to wait for events to unfold a little further.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Flagging my disapproval
An emerging new trend that I have noticed amongst the Australian populace is a penchant to attach seasonal decorations to their car windows to advertise their participation in the relevant national event or public holiday of the day. While adorning your car with reindeer antlers, whilst tacky, is harmless, flying our national flag on Australia Day raises more complicated questions. This practice is particularly concerning given that two days post Oz Day, a significant percentage of this morning's traffic still retain their patriotic banners. While one can be forgiven for leaving the Christmas tree up deep into January, packing away the window flag does not appear to require significant effort. It concerns me that many drivers do not see a problem with year round flag flying. Some may ask, what is the problem with showing pride in your nation? The symbolism of national flags needs to be discussed to answer this question.
Do you remember the old Loony Tunes cartoons where Marvin the Martian would dig his flag into the ground and proclaim “I claim this planet in the name of Mars”. Whilst amusing, it does highlight that one of the original purposes of a flag was to proclaim possession over a given area or object. In paint ball games, for example, the mission is to capture the opposing team's flag. For some absurd reason, my next door neighbour has an almighty flag pole in his back yard. This metaphorical marking of your territory, a la the neighbourhood pooch squirting his piss on the stobie poll, smacks of either an insecurity of or hostility to outsiders. One's mind is drawn back to the hysteria surrounding the Mabo decision, with Joe Public fearing that Ernie Dingo (the most famous Indigenous Australian of the time) would be able to come along and pitch a tent in his front yard. The flying of a flag on a car, a moving item of property, however, is more analogous to naval matters.
While I am not an expert in the laws of the sea, I do know that in naval voyaging, the flying of the flag sent important messages to fellow travellers about the intentions and origins of the particular vessels. My sense is that at least on a a sub-concious level, citizens with window flags are trying to send a message to fellow citizens. Do they feel that they are more patriotic than the rest of us? Are we inferior Australians if we don't join in. And what sort of message does this send to visitors or recent arrivals to our country. I suspect that if German immigrants all started flying their flag on their VW's, there would be a slight controversy. If a Sudanese or Afghani started flying their national flag, I suspect there would be a major uproar. The carrying of national flags at soccer games was outlawed last decade in this country because of the ethnic disunity that it created. With the Cronulla riots still relatively fresh in the memory, I would argue that the recent proliferation of union jacks and southern crosses is not desirable.
Some commentators on this issue have been more extreme in their views, and have drawn comparisons to the Nazi obsession with symbols of nationality and affiliation. While I am not quick to draw such parallels, I think that it is healthy and necessary to have a discussion about the path that we seem to be embarking upon. While not everyone flying the flag is a right wing nationalist, extremist Australian groups do use symbols such as the Southern Cross to advance their prejudiced views. I believe that it is necessary to continue to debate the rise of nationalist sentiments in our country, especially given that our world is becoming smaller and more interconnected every day.
Do you remember the old Loony Tunes cartoons where Marvin the Martian would dig his flag into the ground and proclaim “I claim this planet in the name of Mars”. Whilst amusing, it does highlight that one of the original purposes of a flag was to proclaim possession over a given area or object. In paint ball games, for example, the mission is to capture the opposing team's flag. For some absurd reason, my next door neighbour has an almighty flag pole in his back yard. This metaphorical marking of your territory, a la the neighbourhood pooch squirting his piss on the stobie poll, smacks of either an insecurity of or hostility to outsiders. One's mind is drawn back to the hysteria surrounding the Mabo decision, with Joe Public fearing that Ernie Dingo (the most famous Indigenous Australian of the time) would be able to come along and pitch a tent in his front yard. The flying of a flag on a car, a moving item of property, however, is more analogous to naval matters.
While I am not an expert in the laws of the sea, I do know that in naval voyaging, the flying of the flag sent important messages to fellow travellers about the intentions and origins of the particular vessels. My sense is that at least on a a sub-concious level, citizens with window flags are trying to send a message to fellow citizens. Do they feel that they are more patriotic than the rest of us? Are we inferior Australians if we don't join in. And what sort of message does this send to visitors or recent arrivals to our country. I suspect that if German immigrants all started flying their flag on their VW's, there would be a slight controversy. If a Sudanese or Afghani started flying their national flag, I suspect there would be a major uproar. The carrying of national flags at soccer games was outlawed last decade in this country because of the ethnic disunity that it created. With the Cronulla riots still relatively fresh in the memory, I would argue that the recent proliferation of union jacks and southern crosses is not desirable.
Some commentators on this issue have been more extreme in their views, and have drawn comparisons to the Nazi obsession with symbols of nationality and affiliation. While I am not quick to draw such parallels, I think that it is healthy and necessary to have a discussion about the path that we seem to be embarking upon. While not everyone flying the flag is a right wing nationalist, extremist Australian groups do use symbols such as the Southern Cross to advance their prejudiced views. I believe that it is necessary to continue to debate the rise of nationalist sentiments in our country, especially given that our world is becoming smaller and more interconnected every day.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
The battle within the ALP to be anointed successor to Kevin Foley (and ultimately Mike Rann) is reaching fever point. Much of the media commentary on the issue has focused on the fact that the Right faction controls the numbers within caucus, and can therefore impose their preferred outcome upon the minority Left. While this is technically accurate, much of the Right’s success over the years (driven by Don Farrell) has been due to their reluctance to exert its supremacy in situations where negotiation is possible. The young Turks within the party have long advocated a “rape and pillage” approach, but the wiser monkeys foresaw that this would lead to an irreparable break down of the “Machine” factional arrangement. My sources suggest that the old Vikings are heading towards Valhalla, and the newer, more brutal incarnation are preparing to stampede through the Left’s village.
For many years Jay Weatherill has been introduced at Left events as “the next Premier of South Australia”. Disgruntled backbench MPs have endured the WorkCover reforms and harsh budgets, soothed by the thought that it would all be ok when Jay takes over. This idealistic fantasizing is symbolic of the Left. Jay never had the numbers, and his haughty and superior visage caused spite amongst the Right. Now that the crucial moment has arrived, Left wing back benchers are confronted with a decision. They can continue to enjoy the spoils of office, and the associated responsibility for the decisions which they profess to “oppose”. Or they can put their money where their mouth is.
Nothing irks me more than Left wing back benchers such as Steph Key, hypocrites that stand “in solidarity” at protests against the Government, then waddle inside and park themselves on the comfy seats of power. The time has come for them to either make a stand. Advancing their view from within the party and the Government has clearly fallen on deaf ears. They need to accept that they don’t have the numbers to make change within caucus, so they must take drastic measures during these drastic times.
It seems that many in the Left are willing to take drastic action. It is my understanding that late in the week a tentative deal was made between the Left and one portion of the Right faction to allow Jay Weatherill to become Treasurer. It is likely that this deal was in response to threats by Left backbenchers to resign from the ALP and/or the Parliament. By Saturday, the deal was off. I can only speculate that anger within the “slash and burn” faction of the Right won the day over the “defend the fort” faction. The Right is banking upon the Left being all talk and no action, which certainly has proven to be the case in the past e.g. WorkCover debate. While it is now likely that Weatherill will quit the frontbench in disgust over the reneged deal, time will tell how Left members in the twilight of their careers will react. My question is, what does someone like Steph Key have to lose from calling a spiteful by-election in her seat? Not much.
Political commentators in this State are slow to react to the changing dynamics in SA ALP politics. They continue to seek comments from SA Senator and power broker Don Farrell, and then take these words as gospel. While Don Farrell still exerts significant control within the faction, he is no longer the only force within the faction. It is my assertion that the thwarted Weatherill deal is a result of a battle between opposing forces within the faction to control the destiny of the State Government.
For many years Jay Weatherill has been introduced at Left events as “the next Premier of South Australia”. Disgruntled backbench MPs have endured the WorkCover reforms and harsh budgets, soothed by the thought that it would all be ok when Jay takes over. This idealistic fantasizing is symbolic of the Left. Jay never had the numbers, and his haughty and superior visage caused spite amongst the Right. Now that the crucial moment has arrived, Left wing back benchers are confronted with a decision. They can continue to enjoy the spoils of office, and the associated responsibility for the decisions which they profess to “oppose”. Or they can put their money where their mouth is.
Nothing irks me more than Left wing back benchers such as Steph Key, hypocrites that stand “in solidarity” at protests against the Government, then waddle inside and park themselves on the comfy seats of power. The time has come for them to either make a stand. Advancing their view from within the party and the Government has clearly fallen on deaf ears. They need to accept that they don’t have the numbers to make change within caucus, so they must take drastic measures during these drastic times.
It seems that many in the Left are willing to take drastic action. It is my understanding that late in the week a tentative deal was made between the Left and one portion of the Right faction to allow Jay Weatherill to become Treasurer. It is likely that this deal was in response to threats by Left backbenchers to resign from the ALP and/or the Parliament. By Saturday, the deal was off. I can only speculate that anger within the “slash and burn” faction of the Right won the day over the “defend the fort” faction. The Right is banking upon the Left being all talk and no action, which certainly has proven to be the case in the past e.g. WorkCover debate. While it is now likely that Weatherill will quit the frontbench in disgust over the reneged deal, time will tell how Left members in the twilight of their careers will react. My question is, what does someone like Steph Key have to lose from calling a spiteful by-election in her seat? Not much.
Political commentators in this State are slow to react to the changing dynamics in SA ALP politics. They continue to seek comments from SA Senator and power broker Don Farrell, and then take these words as gospel. While Don Farrell still exerts significant control within the faction, he is no longer the only force within the faction. It is my assertion that the thwarted Weatherill deal is a result of a battle between opposing forces within the faction to control the destiny of the State Government.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Training Wheels
Yesterday morning I found myself in the toy section of Big W. The warning “Not for children under 3” was affixed to the various bubble blowers and doctor’s kits. Recent events in South Australian politics suggest that such a warning should be attached to the SA Parliamentary Labor Party. The impending Cabinet reshuffle is the first public evidence of the transition in power from the old guard (Farrell, Atkinson, Holloway) to the new guard (Malinauskas, Koutsantonis, Snelling). It has been said that the true test of a master’s legacy is the quality of their pupils. I will now outline several glaring errors in the “generational change” process, and the damage that the “grown ups” can inflict upon the factional adolescents.
Error 1. Keeping Foley in the Cabinet
While the full details are yet to be finalized and publicized, it seems likely that Kevin Foley will remain within the Cabinet until 2014. It is likely that this compromise was reached partly to avoid a by-election and partly because of the bro-mance between Malinauskas, Koutsantonis and Big Kev. While this serves to remove Kevin from the key Treasury portfolio, his gentle landing fails to appease the blood lust of the public. It must be remembered that in centuries past, people would flock to public executions to see the beheading of enemies of the state. The current strategy deprives the public of closure. It also will make matters difficult for his successor.
Keeping Foley in Cabinet is akin to keeping Atkinson on the back bench. Political creatures accustomed to calling the shots find it difficult to deal with their loss of relevance. Atkinson has dealt with this by continuing to pester talkback stations, commenting on his former portfolio areas, which must irk John Rau no end. By keeping Foley in Parliament, he will make life difficult for Snelling, the likely successor. The media scrum and Opposition will goad and question Kev, asking whether he would have acted in the same way as Jack. The short term pain of a by-election would have been difficult, but allowing Kev’s political career to bleed out over 3 years will be agonizing.
Error 2.
Tarring Rau and Snelling with the Rann brush
The Marble Bar incident brought forward the axing of Foley, but the party wasn’t ready to go “the whole hog” and remove Rann as well. While the logic is that it will allow Rau and Snelling a chance to find their feet, there is a reason why leadership challenges usually involve the appointment of a new leader and deputy, rather than a piecemeal approach. Public perception of both Foley AND Rann has grown toxic. Rau and Snelling will be required to be the loyal deputy to Mike for at least six months, tarring them with the toxic stench emanating from Rann. This only serves to poison the successor/s. They will also be plagued with questions about their ambitions, such as when they are going to launch their coup. Mike doesn’t seem ready to go on his own accord, so the successor will be torn between loyalty and progression.
Error 3
Seeking to appoint Bernie Finnigan as Holloway replacement before Bernie has Ministerial experience
I would argue that Paul Holloway, leader of the Government in the Upper House, has the heaviest workload of any Government Minister. The ALP is starved of talent in the Legislative Council, and Holloway has to daily fend of attack dogs such as Rob Lucas, Family First and Mark Parnell, assisted only by the useless Gail Gago. Paul is capable of achieving such a workload because of an Aspergers-esque mastery of even the most minute policy detail. While Bernie is more intellectually capable than the majority of the ALP caucus, he faces an uphill battle going straight from backbench duties to leader of the house.
Holloway’s mastery of detail has allowed his office to be staffed by naïve and inexperienced advisers, such as Nicole Cornes (mining adviser, ironic when mining was the policy area which stumped her when Boothby candidate). Bernie will need expert advisers to assist him in dealing with the new workload that he is faced with. It is rumoured that Bernie was kept from the Ministry earlier because Mike Rann had concerns about Finnigan’s weight. Political reporters can be harsh, honing their poison pens on the shape of Gillard’s nose or hairstyle. The rough time faced by Kim Beazley during his time as Federal leader shows that (rightly or wrongly) physical appearance is considered fair game.
Error 4
Not axing Michael Wright from the Ministry earlier
Michael Wright today stated in the Australian that powerbrokers would need to “blast him out” of Cabinet. This isn’t the first time that the Right faction has tried to remove Wright from the Ministry, and he has responded in a similar manner, albeit privately. His shift from the Left faction to the Right faction was also caused by an attempt to remove him from Cabinet. It must be asked, given his profound sense of entitlement and previous betrayal of previous faction, why did the Right expect him to go gently into the night this time? It would have been much wiser to blast him out earlier, at a time that wouldn’t cause such damage to the party. Wright is covered by the old Parliamentary Super scheme, and as such can freely ditch the party, trigger a by-election and spend his retirement at the races. Don’t expect him to consider the fortunes of the ALP if indeed he is blasted out.
Error 5
Appointing Rau and Snelling instead of Weatherill
The Right faction is following the same formula as NSW ALP post Bob Carr, appointing their preferred candidate rather than the best candidate for the job. While Rau is less of a factional beast than Iemma, the “who the hell is John Rau campaign” has already begun. The left wing unions have already indicated that they don’t intend to remain silent on this factional nepotism. It remains to be seen how much resonance their argument will have, but given the national attitude towards the ALP “faceless men”, it is possible that the left will poison the chalice of the anointed.
Any hopes for a purely bloodless and united “generational change” process are futile. On February 8, Pandora’s Box will be opened. It will take some very poor work by the Liberal Opposition to enable the ALP to survive beyond 2014.
Error 1. Keeping Foley in the Cabinet
While the full details are yet to be finalized and publicized, it seems likely that Kevin Foley will remain within the Cabinet until 2014. It is likely that this compromise was reached partly to avoid a by-election and partly because of the bro-mance between Malinauskas, Koutsantonis and Big Kev. While this serves to remove Kevin from the key Treasury portfolio, his gentle landing fails to appease the blood lust of the public. It must be remembered that in centuries past, people would flock to public executions to see the beheading of enemies of the state. The current strategy deprives the public of closure. It also will make matters difficult for his successor.
Keeping Foley in Cabinet is akin to keeping Atkinson on the back bench. Political creatures accustomed to calling the shots find it difficult to deal with their loss of relevance. Atkinson has dealt with this by continuing to pester talkback stations, commenting on his former portfolio areas, which must irk John Rau no end. By keeping Foley in Parliament, he will make life difficult for Snelling, the likely successor. The media scrum and Opposition will goad and question Kev, asking whether he would have acted in the same way as Jack. The short term pain of a by-election would have been difficult, but allowing Kev’s political career to bleed out over 3 years will be agonizing.
Error 2.
Tarring Rau and Snelling with the Rann brush
The Marble Bar incident brought forward the axing of Foley, but the party wasn’t ready to go “the whole hog” and remove Rann as well. While the logic is that it will allow Rau and Snelling a chance to find their feet, there is a reason why leadership challenges usually involve the appointment of a new leader and deputy, rather than a piecemeal approach. Public perception of both Foley AND Rann has grown toxic. Rau and Snelling will be required to be the loyal deputy to Mike for at least six months, tarring them with the toxic stench emanating from Rann. This only serves to poison the successor/s. They will also be plagued with questions about their ambitions, such as when they are going to launch their coup. Mike doesn’t seem ready to go on his own accord, so the successor will be torn between loyalty and progression.
Error 3
Seeking to appoint Bernie Finnigan as Holloway replacement before Bernie has Ministerial experience
I would argue that Paul Holloway, leader of the Government in the Upper House, has the heaviest workload of any Government Minister. The ALP is starved of talent in the Legislative Council, and Holloway has to daily fend of attack dogs such as Rob Lucas, Family First and Mark Parnell, assisted only by the useless Gail Gago. Paul is capable of achieving such a workload because of an Aspergers-esque mastery of even the most minute policy detail. While Bernie is more intellectually capable than the majority of the ALP caucus, he faces an uphill battle going straight from backbench duties to leader of the house.
Holloway’s mastery of detail has allowed his office to be staffed by naïve and inexperienced advisers, such as Nicole Cornes (mining adviser, ironic when mining was the policy area which stumped her when Boothby candidate). Bernie will need expert advisers to assist him in dealing with the new workload that he is faced with. It is rumoured that Bernie was kept from the Ministry earlier because Mike Rann had concerns about Finnigan’s weight. Political reporters can be harsh, honing their poison pens on the shape of Gillard’s nose or hairstyle. The rough time faced by Kim Beazley during his time as Federal leader shows that (rightly or wrongly) physical appearance is considered fair game.
Error 4
Not axing Michael Wright from the Ministry earlier
Michael Wright today stated in the Australian that powerbrokers would need to “blast him out” of Cabinet. This isn’t the first time that the Right faction has tried to remove Wright from the Ministry, and he has responded in a similar manner, albeit privately. His shift from the Left faction to the Right faction was also caused by an attempt to remove him from Cabinet. It must be asked, given his profound sense of entitlement and previous betrayal of previous faction, why did the Right expect him to go gently into the night this time? It would have been much wiser to blast him out earlier, at a time that wouldn’t cause such damage to the party. Wright is covered by the old Parliamentary Super scheme, and as such can freely ditch the party, trigger a by-election and spend his retirement at the races. Don’t expect him to consider the fortunes of the ALP if indeed he is blasted out.
Error 5
Appointing Rau and Snelling instead of Weatherill
The Right faction is following the same formula as NSW ALP post Bob Carr, appointing their preferred candidate rather than the best candidate for the job. While Rau is less of a factional beast than Iemma, the “who the hell is John Rau campaign” has already begun. The left wing unions have already indicated that they don’t intend to remain silent on this factional nepotism. It remains to be seen how much resonance their argument will have, but given the national attitude towards the ALP “faceless men”, it is possible that the left will poison the chalice of the anointed.
Any hopes for a purely bloodless and united “generational change” process are futile. On February 8, Pandora’s Box will be opened. It will take some very poor work by the Liberal Opposition to enable the ALP to survive beyond 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)