The latest Federal opinion poll showing a surge in support for the Greens to 16 percent and an abandonment of the major parties demonstrates a growing disenchantment in the two party system. Voters are faced with the reality that come voting time later in the year, there will only be two realistic options; a Government which has mislead, bungled, betrayed and belittled the electorate OR a Government led by right wing conservative Catholic with impulse control problems. Voters with a world view slightly left of centre are now completely bereft of the opportunity to vote for a Government that represents their world view. While in the short term the ALP will benefit from a golden stream of preferences from the Greens, ensuring re-election, they face being marginalised in the long term.
The 1990 election was the ALP’s first experience in riding back into office on the back of the Green vote. While at the time this was a master stroke by right wing fat cat Graham Richardson, the continued surge in Green popularity will potentially result in some raised eyebrows in the smoked filled back rooms of Chinese restaurants in Canberra. Back in 1990, the Greens were merely a tiger cub, relatively harmless to the lumbering political elephants that ruled the political jungle. The failure of the ALP to dine on its traditional food supply, the left wing voters of Australia, has meant that the Greens have been feasting on a bounty over the past two decades. Garnering a nation wide primary vote of 16% means that while the ALP has been slumbering, the Greens have grown into an adolescent tiger, potentially capable of inflicting some unexpected wounds.
While a 16% primary vote is not enough for the Greens to compete against the ALP on a national level, the nature of the Green vote across the nation is not uniform. Leafy inner suburban suburbs housing intellectual and arty types are fertile breeding grounds for the Greens. At the last Federal election, Lindsay Tanner’s inner Melbourne seat almost fell to the Greens. A continued failure for the ALP to engage its traditional base makes an eventual Federal lower house victory by the Greens almost inevitable. Given that the majority of the leadership positions of the ALP are occupied by power hungry fat cats with a vacuum where their beliefs should be makes turning the tide a difficult task.
The ALP’s gradual abandonment of its’ core beliefs over the past 25 years has transformed the party into a rudderless rabble, unsure of what it stands for. This has caused a transformation in the type of young people that are joining the party, and the belief structures of the people that reach positions of authority. When a political party develops such a severe identity crisis, it can take decades of turmoil to resolve. The worst case scenario for the ALP in the future is that all left wing voters support the Greens and all conservative voters support the Liberal party. If this eventuates, the ALP will become the equivalent of the Australian Democrats. This is a fate that the grand old party does not deserve.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
True believers of nothing
During the 90s, one of my favourite television shows was Seinfeld, the so called “show about nothing”. A central tenet of all of my blogs posts has been that the Australian Labor Party, and the Right faction in particular, is fast becoming a party which is “about nothing”. Gone are the days where the blue collar worker can sit his son down and say “Liberals are for the bosses, Labor is for the workers”. While I have been harping on about this loss of ideology for some time, this week I received an ally in the great 90s ALP Prime Minister Paul “Placido” Keating. Placido, in response to the Rudd betrayal of Morris Iemma, said the following;
I think the problem with Centre Unity in NSW (the Right) is that it lacks now an ideology. When I say an ideology, it lacks an ideology other than the sheer pursuit of power, Mr Keating says. It's clear enough about that, but power for what? And to do what? This is where the national party always depended on Centre Unity, its processes, its real-world touch. When the motivation of the machinery of the party is unfurnished as to policy purpose, it has nothing more to offer than to focus on marketing and polls. After a while the public becomes aware of this and they realise that marketing and spin have no basis. That is more the rule these days than the exception. This is not a winning formula.
So when I say that the ALP is now about nothing, I am being slightly inaccurate. The one thing they are about is power for power’s sake. The corporate boxes, the ministerial drivers, the prestige of sitting on the Government side of the Parliamentary floor. Gone of the days of Whitlam, Dunstan and Keating, where a Government was willing to risk its office by taking unpopular or risky decisions based upon ideology. I remember Senator Don Farrell belittling the Whitlam Government for its short term of office. He went on to say that following that Government, he decided to never allow ALP Governments to get booted out prematurely again. The ascendency of the right faction, led in SA by Don Farrell, has resulted in the abandonment of Whitlamesque reforming zeal, replaced by a reliance on governing through opinion poll. As Keating says, however, a reliance on marketing and polls will only work.
It is true that the Whitlam Government lasted for only 3 years. During that time, however, a substantial amount of ideological reforms were pushed through. While these reforms were unpopular, a high percentage of them are still in place today. The political cycle inevitably flitters between conservative and progressive Governments. The important thing for both sides of politics is to reform as much as possible according to their ideology during the years when they are in ascendency. Clinging to power by doing as little as possible will not work forever. The public tires of the faces as easily as they tire of policies. Spinning promises only work if you follow through on them. Not even the world’s greatest PR team can convince a member of the public that their personal experience of the world around them has changed for the better when it has worsened. When the “it’s time” factor arrives, and a new Government is elected, they will dismantle a proportion of the previous Government’s program and begin implementing their own. It is the duty of every progressive Government to reform in such a way that makes it difficult for future conservative Governments to roll back their achievements. By adopting a “no ideological” approach to governing, the ALP is ensuring the predominance of conservative ideology.
A useful example of the ALP’s abandonment of ideology is the Adelaide Oval debacle plaguing Kevin “Hugh Hefner” Foley. For a period of time before the last election, the ALP was espousing an ideological belief that a hospital was better than a stadium. The unpopularity of this position, partially due to the Marj naming balls up, had the Government reeling in the opinion polls. Instead of holding steadfastly to their original position, they abandoned ideology and cobbled together an ill-thought out proposal aimed at pleasing everyone. This policy was a clear example of an attempt to retain power. As time goes on, it is clear that the scheme proposed is not the best use of taxpayer’s money, nor is it the best way to build a stadium. While the short term spin of the announcement was enough to ensure the Rann Government’s re-election, the public is beginning to realise that “the spin and marketing has no basis”. While Foley and Rann will be the losers in the short term, the long term losers are the public and the supporters (former and present) of a once proud political party.
I think the problem with Centre Unity in NSW (the Right) is that it lacks now an ideology. When I say an ideology, it lacks an ideology other than the sheer pursuit of power, Mr Keating says. It's clear enough about that, but power for what? And to do what? This is where the national party always depended on Centre Unity, its processes, its real-world touch. When the motivation of the machinery of the party is unfurnished as to policy purpose, it has nothing more to offer than to focus on marketing and polls. After a while the public becomes aware of this and they realise that marketing and spin have no basis. That is more the rule these days than the exception. This is not a winning formula.
So when I say that the ALP is now about nothing, I am being slightly inaccurate. The one thing they are about is power for power’s sake. The corporate boxes, the ministerial drivers, the prestige of sitting on the Government side of the Parliamentary floor. Gone of the days of Whitlam, Dunstan and Keating, where a Government was willing to risk its office by taking unpopular or risky decisions based upon ideology. I remember Senator Don Farrell belittling the Whitlam Government for its short term of office. He went on to say that following that Government, he decided to never allow ALP Governments to get booted out prematurely again. The ascendency of the right faction, led in SA by Don Farrell, has resulted in the abandonment of Whitlamesque reforming zeal, replaced by a reliance on governing through opinion poll. As Keating says, however, a reliance on marketing and polls will only work.
It is true that the Whitlam Government lasted for only 3 years. During that time, however, a substantial amount of ideological reforms were pushed through. While these reforms were unpopular, a high percentage of them are still in place today. The political cycle inevitably flitters between conservative and progressive Governments. The important thing for both sides of politics is to reform as much as possible according to their ideology during the years when they are in ascendency. Clinging to power by doing as little as possible will not work forever. The public tires of the faces as easily as they tire of policies. Spinning promises only work if you follow through on them. Not even the world’s greatest PR team can convince a member of the public that their personal experience of the world around them has changed for the better when it has worsened. When the “it’s time” factor arrives, and a new Government is elected, they will dismantle a proportion of the previous Government’s program and begin implementing their own. It is the duty of every progressive Government to reform in such a way that makes it difficult for future conservative Governments to roll back their achievements. By adopting a “no ideological” approach to governing, the ALP is ensuring the predominance of conservative ideology.
A useful example of the ALP’s abandonment of ideology is the Adelaide Oval debacle plaguing Kevin “Hugh Hefner” Foley. For a period of time before the last election, the ALP was espousing an ideological belief that a hospital was better than a stadium. The unpopularity of this position, partially due to the Marj naming balls up, had the Government reeling in the opinion polls. Instead of holding steadfastly to their original position, they abandoned ideology and cobbled together an ill-thought out proposal aimed at pleasing everyone. This policy was a clear example of an attempt to retain power. As time goes on, it is clear that the scheme proposed is not the best use of taxpayer’s money, nor is it the best way to build a stadium. While the short term spin of the announcement was enough to ensure the Rann Government’s re-election, the public is beginning to realise that “the spin and marketing has no basis”. While Foley and Rann will be the losers in the short term, the long term losers are the public and the supporters (former and present) of a once proud political party.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Unelectables
I will commence this blog post with a quote made by the Hon Rob Lucas in the Legislative Council last week.
Labor MPs are openly discussing in the corridors that the Hon. Mr Holloway has been told that he has one or two years left as minister and Leader of the Government in this chamber and that, at the end of the one or two year period, the constant companion, the St Bernard dog, the Hon. Mr Finnigan, will be taking over as the Leader of the Government. Heaven help this chamber and heaven help the government if indeed that were to occur!
He went on to say that this was in a breach of a deal that was made with Minister Holloway prior to the election. When I read Mr Lucas’s matter of interest, I immediately pictured the image of a pack of young wolves gnawing at the bones of their former pack leader. While this may be acceptable behaviour in the animal kingdom, it marks an immense lack of respect for the contribution Paul Holloway has made to the party.
The recent election result must have sent a shock through the young pack of Labor wolves, especially those on the brink of pre-selection. Given that the ALP appears to be on the downward slide in the election cycle, on both the Federal and State levels, the spoils of Government could potentially disappear over the next four years. Factional warriors will now be greedily eying the limelight. What these power hungry pack fail to realize, however, is that the spoils they are fighting over wouldn’t exist without honourable servants, such as Paul Holloway.
In the Legislative Council, Paul Holloway plays the role of the kindergarten teacher, babysitting powerful party figures that would be un-electable in a lower house election race. The Upper House should be home to intellectuals like Holloway, members capable of poring over piles of reports and enduring hours of committees. Members of the upper house should be driving policy development while the lower house members sell it to the public. The above the line voting system, however, means that the Upper House is the home for those that are powerful but unappealing to the public. Holloway, who has the memory of Rain Man without the autism, has done a masterful job over the past ten years managing the Governments business in the Upper House with little support. Now that the wolves are at his door, I suspect that he may allow them in and allow the feeding to commence.
Paul Holloway has become increasingly disenchanted with the “dumbing down” of the Right faction over recent years. Labor Unity, the boozy boys club of 2010 bares very little resemblance to the faction he helped form decades ago. Pessimistic at the best of times, Holloway would be meeting the current threat to his power with gloom and immense disappointment. It is reasonable to suspect that he will jettison this pack of ingrates and head for the hills for a well earned retirement. When he does, the Government of this state will be the weaker for it. Let us see how Bernard Finnigan copes under the stress and fire of the role, especially given the Government is in its dying term.
Another tasty morsel offered by the Mr Lucas regards the recent affairs of Russell Wortley. Paul Holloway isn’t the only upper house member under threat of dethroning. At the Federal level, Dana Wortley, the unlikely Senator, may be staring down the loss of her seat. Wortley, it should be remembered, was a surprise winner as third member of the ALP senate ticket. She gained that spot after Frances Bedford forced Wortley out of the candidacy for Makin in place of Tony Zappia. It must be said that the SA ALP Senate team is incredibly weak, with underachievers in Anne McEwen, Annette Hurley and Wortley. Don Farrell has a quiet public profile, but undoubtedly pulls many private strings. Penny Wong is the only Senator that your average SA voter could name. This needs to change.
I am not opposed to the knifing of Dana. I still recall a ludicrous speech she made to a Young Labor meeting, which verged on embarrassing for all involved. What it shows, however, is that the young stallions are champing at the bit, and willing to engage in cloke and dagger endeavours to force their way into Parliament. The inevitable consequence of these actions is the splintering of allegiances, wounded prides and then ultimately profoundly damaging leaking from within the Government. The ALP SA 2014 death march continues rolling on.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Starting a Rau
Last Friday State Parliament whirred into action for another term. Perhaps whirred isn’t the proper term. What noise does a mouse running on a wheel make? Pitter-patter? The point I am trying to make is, since the March 20 poll, the apparent silence emerging from Government mouth piece Mike Rann has been deafening. Of course he has been tweeting (I suspect the only way this will ever stop is when the blackberry is pried from his cold, dead hands). Upon checking the Government propaganda website, I scrolled through quite a number of Premier’s office media releases. So clearly Mike is still talking. When a Premier holds a media conference in the woods, and no one turns up, does he still make a sound?
Through my perusal of the SA Government website, I noticed that lower tier Government Ministers Snelling, O’Brien, Koutsantonis, Rankine and Portolesi were pumping out media releases ad nauseum. They are clearly still enamoured with their portfolio areas and are beavering away, eying a promotion in the next reshuffle or two. Of course Mike Rann had a smattering of pressers, but the only one that I can recall making any public impact was his response to the Federal Health package. This, however, was an issue where the media was actively seeking his view. This in contrast with the other new name in the list of Government media releases was the new Attorney General, John Rau. Every word he has spoken since his swearing in has been given extensive media coverage. Does the media in this State have a new darling?
Before delving into the significance of the emergence of John Rau as the media’s choice to take as Premier, I should discuss the lame duck, the dead horse, the monkey in the room, Mike Rann. His relative silence (bearing in mind silence for Mike is still a cacophony of noise to the normal man) could be explained for a few factors. Firstly, the 2010 election campaign was particularly bruising. He could simply be tending to his wounds and developing a plot to re-establish his public popularity. Maybe he thinks that the public just needs a break, and when he returns, he will be welcomed back like a relative whose flight had been delayed due to volcanic ash. On the other hand, it is possible that the arrows flung during the 2010 battle lodged too deeply for repair. Certainly towards the end of the campaign, his famous endurance seemed on the wane. Whatever the reason, the gap in the airways has now been filled by the new AG, John Rau.
I met the news regarding the elevation of John Rau to Attorney-General with delight. As a matter of fact, I had called for his elevation well before the March 20 poll. Michael Atkinson’s resignation and Rau’s elevation, however, came as a complete surprise. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe Michael Atkinson had the self-awareness and humility to acknowledge that he was a liability. Atkinson’s fall, jump or push, forced the Right faction to elevate Mr Rau, despite his wide spread unpopularity within the faction. He never turns up to factional fundraisers or social events, and seems to walk apart from the pack. Although he keeps his distance from the pack, he is still a member of the Right, which may cause all sorts of problems in the foreseeable future.
In a recent fluffy Advertiser profile piece, John Rau was touted as a future Premier. Messrs Koutsantonis and Foley would not have been pleased by this media anointment. I remember the outrage when Government staffer Stephen Mullighan was mentioned in the same lofty terms. Whether it be Medieval England or modern South Australian politics, there is always intrigue and threat of war when a new contender for the throne emerges. This is especially the case when the contender resides within the same palace as the king-in-waiting.
The problem that Foley and Koutsantonis face in warding of a John Rau tilt at the leadership is that Rau is baggage free whereas they are carting around the equivalent of Emelda Marcos’s travel luggage. The media sees Rau as a fresh face and voice, whereas Foley’s tricks are old hat. Koutsantonis is still reeling from his Turbo Tom alter ego. Weatherill and Conlon are going to be engaging in trench warfare for the foreseeable future. John Rau, of course, is a slave to the “numbers” and it is unlikely that he will get factional support. On the other hand, if his public appeal continues to grow, factional fat cats may have no other choice.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Backflop
3:43 PM, 4/5/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
It is with much dismay and sadness that I commence writing my first Federal politics blog. Although in recent times I had become severely disenchanted with the SA Branch of the ALP, the lingering hatred of John Howard had kept me clinging to the hope of a bright future under the Rudd Government. The last few weeks of “deck clearing” by Rudd and colleagues, however, has amounted to a fundamental breach of trust with the Australian people. In my opinion, the ETS backflop will be fatal to the Rudd’s leadership, but hopefully not the ALP Government as a whole.
In politics, backflips are not always harmful. In some instances, it can signal that a Government is listening to public sentiment and humble enough to acknowledge its’ mistakes. This ETS backflip, however, is a whole other kettle of fish. Normally a back flip results from wide spread public outrage in response to a given policy. With the ETS, the usual suspects (coal industry, business groups etc) were outraged and vocal in their opposition. The quiet remainder, however, was either confused as to the implications or accepting that action was needed on Climate Change. I assert that well over 50 per cent of the population would have been in favour of the ETS if it was explained in Keating English, not Rudd bureaucracisms and Wong legalese. What was the purpose of this back flip? Such action would never win over the sceptics, who prefer to support Abbott, who is one of their own. To the uninformed swinging voter, the only message they get from the whole debacle is that Rudd doesn’t follow through. To those passionate about climate change, however, every syllable from this day forward carefully uttered by Kevin Rudd will ring hollow.
The Government has various arguments which they can advance in defence of their back flip. They can point to the obstructionism of the Opposition and minor parties. Senate obstructionism is as old as the Federation itself, however. In order to govern in Australia, the Senate is an element of the system that must be dealt with. Usually this is through compromise, not wholesale abandonment of principles. They also had the choice of running an election campaign on action for climate change, a battle that I believe would have been won. Why then, did the PM opt for the path down which lies inevitable political ruin?
I cannot begin to fathom the reasoning behind the ETS back down, but I will endeavour to speculate. Clearly Rudd was frightened of the “great big tax on everything rhetoric”. He will find any opposition leader capable of over simplification or neat sound bites difficult to counter, as every public uttering he makes comes in three pillars, with numerous caveats. Perhaps the Government is relying on the culpability of the Opposition in stalling the legislation. Maybe they think that believing in Climate Change but not having the guts to do anything about it is better than not believing in it at all. I suspect that the ultimate motivation, however, was freeing up 2 billion dollars in cash to hurl at the electorate in the upcoming election campaign.
If the ETS backdown was designed to free up cash for pre-election spending spree, it is perhaps an unwise move. Any big spending Government programs will be faced with two major dilemmas; 1. Will this end up like your Government insulation scheme? 2. Are you going to back down from this after the election like with the ETS/Child care etc? In addition, the Liberal Opposition is already trying to paint the ALP Government with the traditional high spending/high taxing brush. A hefty pre-election spending program will play directly into their hands.
The ALP’s saving grace at this point in time is the unpalatable nature of the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, and the unwillingness for many in the community to return to the days of Howardism. The ALP at both State and Federal levels is fast becoming the “lesser of two evils” party. They continue to govern not because of their merits, but because of the lack of merit in the alternative. This is an unfortunate position for the country to be in, and augers well for the emergence of a third force that is perhaps less extreme than the Greens. The most likely outcome in the coming election is the narrow re-election of a Rudd Government, followed by the swift guillotining of the PM, to be replaced by either Julia Gillard (ballooned by public sentiment) or whomever the fat Catholic power brokers decide. In any event, this election will force voters to decide; do you prefer someone who believes in things that are different to you over someone that believes nothing at all?
It is with much dismay and sadness that I commence writing my first Federal politics blog. Although in recent times I had become severely disenchanted with the SA Branch of the ALP, the lingering hatred of John Howard had kept me clinging to the hope of a bright future under the Rudd Government. The last few weeks of “deck clearing” by Rudd and colleagues, however, has amounted to a fundamental breach of trust with the Australian people. In my opinion, the ETS backflop will be fatal to the Rudd’s leadership, but hopefully not the ALP Government as a whole.
In politics, backflips are not always harmful. In some instances, it can signal that a Government is listening to public sentiment and humble enough to acknowledge its’ mistakes. This ETS backflip, however, is a whole other kettle of fish. Normally a back flip results from wide spread public outrage in response to a given policy. With the ETS, the usual suspects (coal industry, business groups etc) were outraged and vocal in their opposition. The quiet remainder, however, was either confused as to the implications or accepting that action was needed on Climate Change. I assert that well over 50 per cent of the population would have been in favour of the ETS if it was explained in Keating English, not Rudd bureaucracisms and Wong legalese. What was the purpose of this back flip? Such action would never win over the sceptics, who prefer to support Abbott, who is one of their own. To the uninformed swinging voter, the only message they get from the whole debacle is that Rudd doesn’t follow through. To those passionate about climate change, however, every syllable from this day forward carefully uttered by Kevin Rudd will ring hollow.
The Government has various arguments which they can advance in defence of their back flip. They can point to the obstructionism of the Opposition and minor parties. Senate obstructionism is as old as the Federation itself, however. In order to govern in Australia, the Senate is an element of the system that must be dealt with. Usually this is through compromise, not wholesale abandonment of principles. They also had the choice of running an election campaign on action for climate change, a battle that I believe would have been won. Why then, did the PM opt for the path down which lies inevitable political ruin?
I cannot begin to fathom the reasoning behind the ETS back down, but I will endeavour to speculate. Clearly Rudd was frightened of the “great big tax on everything rhetoric”. He will find any opposition leader capable of over simplification or neat sound bites difficult to counter, as every public uttering he makes comes in three pillars, with numerous caveats. Perhaps the Government is relying on the culpability of the Opposition in stalling the legislation. Maybe they think that believing in Climate Change but not having the guts to do anything about it is better than not believing in it at all. I suspect that the ultimate motivation, however, was freeing up 2 billion dollars in cash to hurl at the electorate in the upcoming election campaign.
If the ETS backdown was designed to free up cash for pre-election spending spree, it is perhaps an unwise move. Any big spending Government programs will be faced with two major dilemmas; 1. Will this end up like your Government insulation scheme? 2. Are you going to back down from this after the election like with the ETS/Child care etc? In addition, the Liberal Opposition is already trying to paint the ALP Government with the traditional high spending/high taxing brush. A hefty pre-election spending program will play directly into their hands.
The ALP’s saving grace at this point in time is the unpalatable nature of the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, and the unwillingness for many in the community to return to the days of Howardism. The ALP at both State and Federal levels is fast becoming the “lesser of two evils” party. They continue to govern not because of their merits, but because of the lack of merit in the alternative. This is an unfortunate position for the country to be in, and augers well for the emergence of a third force that is perhaps less extreme than the Greens. The most likely outcome in the coming election is the narrow re-election of a Rudd Government, followed by the swift guillotining of the PM, to be replaced by either Julia Gillard (ballooned by public sentiment) or whomever the fat Catholic power brokers decide. In any event, this election will force voters to decide; do you prefer someone who believes in things that are different to you over someone that believes nothing at all?
Cornes still on the ALP’s side
3:35 PM, 19/4/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Well the Rann Government has a new mining adviser in WAG, law graduate and former candidate Nicole Cornes. Oh I forgot to mention that Nicole is a mum, which apparently is an important consideration when determining who is best qualified to steer South Australia’s mining policy. The fact is, however, it is extremely unlikely Nicole will be “steering” policy at all. She doesn’t come from a background in the mining industry, and the only “mining law” she would have studied would be a couple of court cases in Constitutional Law. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Fairy Bay was a large multinational coal exporter. The portfolio of mining is extremely ironic given her extensive knowledge of the ALP’s Uranium policy following her pre-selection. It should be noted however, that few political advisers have a background in their portfolios, and their role is to provide political advice. Readers can decide for themselves the degree of political astuteness possessed by Mrs Cornes. Of course the appointment was not a popular PR exercise, but the ALP could care less at this stage. The gravy train is still rolling for at least another four years. This bodes well for fat cats and associates, but not for the good Government of South Australia.
Before examining the implications for the State as a whole, some time must be spent examining why Nicole was promoted to a higher post. It is widely acknowledge that the responsibility for the spectacular failure of the Boothby election campaign rests with bovver boys Kevin Foley and Tom Koutsantonis. Nicole was a metaphorical lamb to the slaughter, and I have much sympathy for the manner in which she was treated, particularly with reference to the legal matters stemming from her childhood. With balls ups like this, the right tends to make amends by assisting the victims rather than punishing the perpetrators. The debacle most probably harmed Nicole’s prospects of legal work in this State, and so it would be considered probably fair enough that she be compensated. Also of consideration is the fact that Don Farrell is to the Adelaide Crows what John Howard was to the Australian Cricket Team. He is a Crows tragic, and continued friendship with Cornsey would be highly desirable. Evidence of his Crows fandom is the fact that a prior choice for Boothby candidacy was Mark Bickley! Come on! What about Wayne Weidemann? He would rough up the Liberal front bench. Neil Craig might be looking for a job soon, so keep your eyes peeled. While this farcical method of pre-selection has appeared to be redressed for this election, invisible roles such as advising continue to be a fertile play ground for nepotism.
A few months ago, I was watching the excellent Labor documentary “Labor in Power”. The documentary featured interviews with various Government advisers, most of whom wore glasses, sported brown patches on their jackets and had Dr and phD attached to their names. These are the kind of advisers that steer policy, implementing the significant financial and social reforms of the Keating and Hawke eras. The philosophy of the SA Right is starkly different when appointing advisers. They believe that anyone that is able put on a suit and tie, drink coffee and cash fat pay cheques is qualified enough. For example, the current Sports Adviser for the State Government worked at “Crows Travel” as a travel agent. See the link to sport? Good. Oh he plays footy too. Appointing advisers in this manner is flawed on two levels. Firstly, they lack the qualifications to understand and then adapt policy for the purposes of achieving ALP party ideology. Secondly, in many cases they are lacking a background in the ALP completely, so even if they do understand the issues, the policy they develop or approve may not accord with what is expected of an ALP Government. Is it any wonder that ALP voters abandoned the party in droves at the last election?
The situation doesn’t improve at the upper echelon of Ministerial staffers. Every time Nick Alexandrides attends a COS meeting, he will be greeted with a flock of new Chiefs of Staff, the majority of whom are well under the age of thirty. The Malinauskas flock continues to thrive under this Government, with Peter’s younger brother Rob picking up the COS spot in Turbo Tom Koutsantonis’s office. Another Malinauskas chum Nick Lombardi has taken the long sought after post of Paul Holloway’s COS, which was vacated by long serving Kevin Gent. While it may not be a case of the blind leading the blind, it is most certainly the inexperienced leading the inexperienced. Senior party figures would be relishing another four years of power and could care less for now. I am sure they will deal with the fall out of the 2010 election at some point before 2014. But for now let the gravy train roll.
Well the Rann Government has a new mining adviser in WAG, law graduate and former candidate Nicole Cornes. Oh I forgot to mention that Nicole is a mum, which apparently is an important consideration when determining who is best qualified to steer South Australia’s mining policy. The fact is, however, it is extremely unlikely Nicole will be “steering” policy at all. She doesn’t come from a background in the mining industry, and the only “mining law” she would have studied would be a couple of court cases in Constitutional Law. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Fairy Bay was a large multinational coal exporter. The portfolio of mining is extremely ironic given her extensive knowledge of the ALP’s Uranium policy following her pre-selection. It should be noted however, that few political advisers have a background in their portfolios, and their role is to provide political advice. Readers can decide for themselves the degree of political astuteness possessed by Mrs Cornes. Of course the appointment was not a popular PR exercise, but the ALP could care less at this stage. The gravy train is still rolling for at least another four years. This bodes well for fat cats and associates, but not for the good Government of South Australia.
Before examining the implications for the State as a whole, some time must be spent examining why Nicole was promoted to a higher post. It is widely acknowledge that the responsibility for the spectacular failure of the Boothby election campaign rests with bovver boys Kevin Foley and Tom Koutsantonis. Nicole was a metaphorical lamb to the slaughter, and I have much sympathy for the manner in which she was treated, particularly with reference to the legal matters stemming from her childhood. With balls ups like this, the right tends to make amends by assisting the victims rather than punishing the perpetrators. The debacle most probably harmed Nicole’s prospects of legal work in this State, and so it would be considered probably fair enough that she be compensated. Also of consideration is the fact that Don Farrell is to the Adelaide Crows what John Howard was to the Australian Cricket Team. He is a Crows tragic, and continued friendship with Cornsey would be highly desirable. Evidence of his Crows fandom is the fact that a prior choice for Boothby candidacy was Mark Bickley! Come on! What about Wayne Weidemann? He would rough up the Liberal front bench. Neil Craig might be looking for a job soon, so keep your eyes peeled. While this farcical method of pre-selection has appeared to be redressed for this election, invisible roles such as advising continue to be a fertile play ground for nepotism.
A few months ago, I was watching the excellent Labor documentary “Labor in Power”. The documentary featured interviews with various Government advisers, most of whom wore glasses, sported brown patches on their jackets and had Dr and phD attached to their names. These are the kind of advisers that steer policy, implementing the significant financial and social reforms of the Keating and Hawke eras. The philosophy of the SA Right is starkly different when appointing advisers. They believe that anyone that is able put on a suit and tie, drink coffee and cash fat pay cheques is qualified enough. For example, the current Sports Adviser for the State Government worked at “Crows Travel” as a travel agent. See the link to sport? Good. Oh he plays footy too. Appointing advisers in this manner is flawed on two levels. Firstly, they lack the qualifications to understand and then adapt policy for the purposes of achieving ALP party ideology. Secondly, in many cases they are lacking a background in the ALP completely, so even if they do understand the issues, the policy they develop or approve may not accord with what is expected of an ALP Government. Is it any wonder that ALP voters abandoned the party in droves at the last election?
The situation doesn’t improve at the upper echelon of Ministerial staffers. Every time Nick Alexandrides attends a COS meeting, he will be greeted with a flock of new Chiefs of Staff, the majority of whom are well under the age of thirty. The Malinauskas flock continues to thrive under this Government, with Peter’s younger brother Rob picking up the COS spot in Turbo Tom Koutsantonis’s office. Another Malinauskas chum Nick Lombardi has taken the long sought after post of Paul Holloway’s COS, which was vacated by long serving Kevin Gent. While it may not be a case of the blind leading the blind, it is most certainly the inexperienced leading the inexperienced. Senior party figures would be relishing another four years of power and could care less for now. I am sure they will deal with the fall out of the 2010 election at some point before 2014. But for now let the gravy train roll.
T-t-t-t-that’s all folks
12:47 PM, 9/4/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Today we were greeted with the shock news that SA Parliament’s Porky Pig, Pat Conlon has deserted the Left Faction. This is not the first time that he has done this, but it is the first time that he has done so publicly. Conlon first stormed out of the left a few years ago, when his attempts at going Federal were stymied, probably by the new guard, or Weatherill-Wong Left. For some reason, he then reconsidered his move, and returned cap in hand asking for their forgiveness. While the Left faction accepted his vote, they probably never forgave him for this impetuous move. The crushing of his Canberra ambitions may have been part of the falling out, but a few other factors would have played a role.
Pat Conlon has long been a member of the SA ALP leadership quartet which also consisted of Rann, Foley, Atkinson. Two of his three leadership allies are members of the right, and Rann is unaligned. Being a member of the leadership team has two consequences. Firstly, due to necessity, Conlon would have been jointly involved in many decisions etc with Right members. This may have given the appearance within the Left that he was in cahoots with the Right. The Foley-Conlon relationship, in particular, blossomed due to a shared love of power and boozing on. Readers may recall the infamous Xenophon Parliamentary Bar incident, where a heavily intoxicated Foley and Conlon abused Mr X in unsavoury terms (or at least one of them did). The Right Faction in general has a boozy culture, which I freely admit to partaking in; too much on many occasions. The personalities of members of the Right have much more in common with Mr Conlon than the left.
Politics, and factions in particular, have changed over the years. Once upon a time they were all about ideologies, whereas now they are mainly concerned with personalities. Sure, the hierarchy of the Right is still predominately Catholic, and the hierarchy of the left wore Che Guevera t-shirts in their youth. At the grass roots level, however, it is more about indoctrinating the new recruits into a pack mentality; us versus them. It is more about the battle than the cause. In SA in recent years, factional allegiance is more about survival than ideology. For example, I remember being at the meeting which announced that Michael Wright had joined the Right ( I believe it was the same meeting as when Kate Ellis was announced as candidate for Adelaide). He hadn’t changed his opinions on the class struggle or preferred economic model. He was at risk of being booted from the Ministry by the Left, and sought refuge or asylum within the Right. Wright broke the barrier, and many more were soon to follow. Traditional enemies, such as Lea Stevens, the Wortley’s, John Camillo and Robyn Geraghty (and staff/supporters) began turning up at Labor Right fundraisers. This was done purely out of self interest. I remember the shock of a leftie meat workers trade unionist when I told him Russel Wortley was at a Makin School (right) Dinner. He proclaimed “But he was more left wing than me”. Wortley now has a standing order on corporate box soccer tickets at Adelaide United, where he can sip chardonnay and cast his gaze down upon the huddled masses. Survival doesn’t explain Pat’s departure, however.
In a previous blog, following the reshuffle, I noted that Conlon has been in a stagnant cabinet position for some time. It appeared that he had reached the pinnacle, the highest point available to a left wing minister. The positions of AG, Treasurer and Premier seemed out of reach. With Jay Weatherill stealing the left’s support as their preferred choice for future Premier, Pat didn’t really have any reason to remain in the fold. While Conlon has never been mentioned in newspaper predictions as future Premier material, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t envision the possibility in his little pink head. His defection from the left means that he is positioning himself for one of two options. He has either accepted that he has achieved as much as he can, and is preparing to bow out OR he is positioning himself as a middle ground option in a future leadership ballot. Time will tell what his strategy is.
One final question to ponder is the loyalties of Conlon acolytes Leon Bignell and Paul Caica. Paul Caica strikes me as someone of strong left wing beliefs, and I would lose much respect for him if he chose to defect. Bignell, on the other hand, started out political life as a Conlon adviser, and his ideologies probably followed on from there. He is an even money bet on switching with Conlon in my view, although I am not an expert on this area.
Today we were greeted with the shock news that SA Parliament’s Porky Pig, Pat Conlon has deserted the Left Faction. This is not the first time that he has done this, but it is the first time that he has done so publicly. Conlon first stormed out of the left a few years ago, when his attempts at going Federal were stymied, probably by the new guard, or Weatherill-Wong Left. For some reason, he then reconsidered his move, and returned cap in hand asking for their forgiveness. While the Left faction accepted his vote, they probably never forgave him for this impetuous move. The crushing of his Canberra ambitions may have been part of the falling out, but a few other factors would have played a role.
Pat Conlon has long been a member of the SA ALP leadership quartet which also consisted of Rann, Foley, Atkinson. Two of his three leadership allies are members of the right, and Rann is unaligned. Being a member of the leadership team has two consequences. Firstly, due to necessity, Conlon would have been jointly involved in many decisions etc with Right members. This may have given the appearance within the Left that he was in cahoots with the Right. The Foley-Conlon relationship, in particular, blossomed due to a shared love of power and boozing on. Readers may recall the infamous Xenophon Parliamentary Bar incident, where a heavily intoxicated Foley and Conlon abused Mr X in unsavoury terms (or at least one of them did). The Right Faction in general has a boozy culture, which I freely admit to partaking in; too much on many occasions. The personalities of members of the Right have much more in common with Mr Conlon than the left.
Politics, and factions in particular, have changed over the years. Once upon a time they were all about ideologies, whereas now they are mainly concerned with personalities. Sure, the hierarchy of the Right is still predominately Catholic, and the hierarchy of the left wore Che Guevera t-shirts in their youth. At the grass roots level, however, it is more about indoctrinating the new recruits into a pack mentality; us versus them. It is more about the battle than the cause. In SA in recent years, factional allegiance is more about survival than ideology. For example, I remember being at the meeting which announced that Michael Wright had joined the Right ( I believe it was the same meeting as when Kate Ellis was announced as candidate for Adelaide). He hadn’t changed his opinions on the class struggle or preferred economic model. He was at risk of being booted from the Ministry by the Left, and sought refuge or asylum within the Right. Wright broke the barrier, and many more were soon to follow. Traditional enemies, such as Lea Stevens, the Wortley’s, John Camillo and Robyn Geraghty (and staff/supporters) began turning up at Labor Right fundraisers. This was done purely out of self interest. I remember the shock of a leftie meat workers trade unionist when I told him Russel Wortley was at a Makin School (right) Dinner. He proclaimed “But he was more left wing than me”. Wortley now has a standing order on corporate box soccer tickets at Adelaide United, where he can sip chardonnay and cast his gaze down upon the huddled masses. Survival doesn’t explain Pat’s departure, however.
In a previous blog, following the reshuffle, I noted that Conlon has been in a stagnant cabinet position for some time. It appeared that he had reached the pinnacle, the highest point available to a left wing minister. The positions of AG, Treasurer and Premier seemed out of reach. With Jay Weatherill stealing the left’s support as their preferred choice for future Premier, Pat didn’t really have any reason to remain in the fold. While Conlon has never been mentioned in newspaper predictions as future Premier material, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t envision the possibility in his little pink head. His defection from the left means that he is positioning himself for one of two options. He has either accepted that he has achieved as much as he can, and is preparing to bow out OR he is positioning himself as a middle ground option in a future leadership ballot. Time will tell what his strategy is.
One final question to ponder is the loyalties of Conlon acolytes Leon Bignell and Paul Caica. Paul Caica strikes me as someone of strong left wing beliefs, and I would lose much respect for him if he chose to defect. Bignell, on the other hand, started out political life as a Conlon adviser, and his ideologies probably followed on from there. He is an even money bet on switching with Conlon in my view, although I am not an expert on this area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)