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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.