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.
Friday, January 28, 2011
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.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Trigger shy
Earlier this year when the “faceless” conspirators within the ALP plotted the brutal knifing of Julius Rudd, it is doubtful that they could have foreseen the public reaction and PR ramifications of their cold and calculated act. For a South Australian Government in the midst of leadership turmoil, the public backlash to the callous treatment of PM Rudd has further complicated the already torturous decision regarding life after Rann which is facing factional powerbrokers. In post Rudd political climate, powerbrokers such as Peter Malinauskas (whom Don Farrell has ceded complete State ALP control) face difficult decisions not only regarding who will replace Rann and Foley, but also how to instigate that transition.
It is clear from public pronouncements made by ALP HQ that they are eager to achieve an orderly “generational change” rather than a Rudd or Keating style forced dethroning. The difficulty facing the party, however, is two fold. Firstly, this process needs to be consensual. While I feel that Mike Rann has lost his passion for leadership (caused in large part by Chantelois scandal) and will stand down willingly, Kevin Foley does not strike me as the type to go quietly in the night. While his ego has taken a battering by the public joy over his recent troubles, it will take “close friends” like Koutsantonis and Malinauskas all their skills of persuasion to convince Foley that his time has come and he is a burden to the party. Even if the party is capable of ensuring the consensual resignation of Rann and Foley, an orderly transition can only occur if there is no contest over the replacements.
In a recent article regarding the Malinauskas/Weatherill breakfast summit, both parties were said to be united on the goal of achieving ALP re-election in 2014. I am guessing, however, that Jay and Pete have differing views on how to achieve this goal. It is likely that Weatherill believes that the party needs his leadership to succeed at the next poll, while Malinauskas believes that the party needs Jay to be loyal and take his medicine in a Snelling, Koutsantonis or Rau Government. The ALP cannot be victorious in 2014 unless it has a united caucus which is satisfied with the outcome of the leadership transition. It is difficult to foresee a scenario in which this can be achieved within the factional status quo. Recent events, however, suggest that factional unity is slowly eroding, and this process will accelerate as 2014 nears.
State Government Minister Michael O’Brien, member of the Right faction, recently departed from the factional line and called for a change in leadership. The suggestion that he was coveting a deal with Weatherill and the Left is a further complication for Right faction operatives. Plans to shoe horn Snelling or Koutsantonis into leadership is reliant upon the Right faction’s numbers dominance within caucus. The possibility of the fracturing of the Right vote within a leadership ballot is an occurrence which would remove ultimate control from faction leaders. The Right vote also fractured at State Conference on the issue of gay marriage, indicating the iron fist is rusting. There is a possibility that Right figures loyal to Don Farrell won’t recognize the heir apparent. This loyalty issue has implications in both directions.
Prior to the Foley Marble-gate incident, it was touted that Minister O’Brien would be sacked from the Ministry within the week following State Convention. Under the watch of Don Farrell (long time friend of O’Brien), his sacking from the Ministry would not have occurred. Under the new guard, however, his cloke of invincibility was stripped from him, leaving him exposed to the cold and harsh Malinauskas winds. Luckily his execution was stayed because the Government was forced to bunker down in the wake of the events at 4 am on a Sunday morning. The Government limped towards Christmas in damage control and baulked from self-inflicting any more wounds. Rest assured, however, that as MPs carve their Christmas turkey, plunging the knife into the succulent breast, their thoughts will be drawn to the crisis facing them in the New Year.
It is clear from public pronouncements made by ALP HQ that they are eager to achieve an orderly “generational change” rather than a Rudd or Keating style forced dethroning. The difficulty facing the party, however, is two fold. Firstly, this process needs to be consensual. While I feel that Mike Rann has lost his passion for leadership (caused in large part by Chantelois scandal) and will stand down willingly, Kevin Foley does not strike me as the type to go quietly in the night. While his ego has taken a battering by the public joy over his recent troubles, it will take “close friends” like Koutsantonis and Malinauskas all their skills of persuasion to convince Foley that his time has come and he is a burden to the party. Even if the party is capable of ensuring the consensual resignation of Rann and Foley, an orderly transition can only occur if there is no contest over the replacements.
In a recent article regarding the Malinauskas/Weatherill breakfast summit, both parties were said to be united on the goal of achieving ALP re-election in 2014. I am guessing, however, that Jay and Pete have differing views on how to achieve this goal. It is likely that Weatherill believes that the party needs his leadership to succeed at the next poll, while Malinauskas believes that the party needs Jay to be loyal and take his medicine in a Snelling, Koutsantonis or Rau Government. The ALP cannot be victorious in 2014 unless it has a united caucus which is satisfied with the outcome of the leadership transition. It is difficult to foresee a scenario in which this can be achieved within the factional status quo. Recent events, however, suggest that factional unity is slowly eroding, and this process will accelerate as 2014 nears.
State Government Minister Michael O’Brien, member of the Right faction, recently departed from the factional line and called for a change in leadership. The suggestion that he was coveting a deal with Weatherill and the Left is a further complication for Right faction operatives. Plans to shoe horn Snelling or Koutsantonis into leadership is reliant upon the Right faction’s numbers dominance within caucus. The possibility of the fracturing of the Right vote within a leadership ballot is an occurrence which would remove ultimate control from faction leaders. The Right vote also fractured at State Conference on the issue of gay marriage, indicating the iron fist is rusting. There is a possibility that Right figures loyal to Don Farrell won’t recognize the heir apparent. This loyalty issue has implications in both directions.
Prior to the Foley Marble-gate incident, it was touted that Minister O’Brien would be sacked from the Ministry within the week following State Convention. Under the watch of Don Farrell (long time friend of O’Brien), his sacking from the Ministry would not have occurred. Under the new guard, however, his cloke of invincibility was stripped from him, leaving him exposed to the cold and harsh Malinauskas winds. Luckily his execution was stayed because the Government was forced to bunker down in the wake of the events at 4 am on a Sunday morning. The Government limped towards Christmas in damage control and baulked from self-inflicting any more wounds. Rest assured, however, that as MPs carve their Christmas turkey, plunging the knife into the succulent breast, their thoughts will be drawn to the crisis facing them in the New Year.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Breaking Point
When political commentators predicted that the SA ALP leadership would emerge from this weekend’s State Conference with a “bloodied nose”, I suspect they were speaking in metaphors. While Rann and Foley’s bodyguards ensured they were left untouched by irate unionists, Foley was apparently on his lonesome when danger truly struck. On the facts released, it appears the Big Kev was the victim of an unprovoked attack, but one could argue that he was exposing himself to that very risk as a high profile identity stumbling around the city during the wee hours of the morning. His headache from the king hit, however, pales in comparison to the head aches facing the party and leadership in the coming months.
Big Kev’s stoush outside the Marble Bar is not the only high profile confrontation that he has been involved in during the week. His Parliamentary encounter with Agriculture Minister Michael O’Brien differs markedly because it is suggested that it was provoked, and metaphorical punches were thrown by both parties. O’Brien, it is claimed, instigated the dispute by privately canvassing a leadership coup with Education Minister Jay Weatherill. While he has since denied the Weatherill component of that claim, he has confirmed his belief that it is time for a leadership change. While Foley’s Marble Bar attacker will face the maximum of a low level assault charge, party sources suggest that O’Brien will receive a political death sentence at this week at the earliest.
Speculation of O’Brien’s Ministerial sacking following his Timber-gate gaffe fest seemed puzzling in isolation, especially given the survival of fellow Right wing acolytes Atkinson and Koutsantonis following much greater scandals. When viewed in context of the claimed leadership coup, however, his imminent demise makes much more sense. While Rann is definitely on his “victory lap”, he isn’t gone yet and the Right is still undecided about who will replace him. Allowing a Minister who has publicly undermined the leadership to remain on the front bench is an untenable proposition. Rumours are circulating that he will be "sacked" by the Premier this week, making way for another Right hopeful, most likely Leesa Vlahos. I suspect O’Brien knows his end is near(or he should) and his public pronouncement on the weekend could at least make him appear prophetic when Rann’s time comes. It appears, however, that he has been caught backing both horses (Weatherill in private, Right faction candidate in public) and neither Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau will take this betrayal of faction lightly if the attain the top job. His cross-factional scheme, however, is perhaps evidence of a rift emerging within the Right faction.
While I am no longer privy to all of the internal machinations of the Right faction, I suspect there may be two camps with differing viewpoints on leadership succession. One camp will fight Weatherill’s ascension to the death, even if internal polling or logic suggests that this will lead to political suicide and defeat in 2014. The egos of Koutsantonis, Snelling and Rau would never countenance that their leadership would be a failure, so the anti-Weatherill camp will mainly consist of friends and allies of those MPs and devout Right wing ideologues. The opposing camp of Right faction members would consist of realists that are willing to swallow their pride and acknowledge that Jay is the most likely candidate to deliver a victory to the ALP in 2014. This group would consist of people that are concerned more with self-preservation than factional ideological purity. Michael O’Brien potential falls within this camp, although I suspect that the idea of “leapfrogging” other Right faction rivals for the Deputy position also were motivations. The left faction will come out of this year’s State Convention feeling emboldened, and the metaphoric and actual bruises born by Rann and Foley will only serve to encourage party disunity and agitation. It will take much more than “rousing” speeches by Malinauskas and “contrite” apologies from Michael Brown to reverse the SA ALP’s breakneck momentum towards oblivion. With a competent and united Brumby Government careening towards defeat, the SA ALP can't afford to spend much longer preoccupied with internal division.
Big Kev’s stoush outside the Marble Bar is not the only high profile confrontation that he has been involved in during the week. His Parliamentary encounter with Agriculture Minister Michael O’Brien differs markedly because it is suggested that it was provoked, and metaphorical punches were thrown by both parties. O’Brien, it is claimed, instigated the dispute by privately canvassing a leadership coup with Education Minister Jay Weatherill. While he has since denied the Weatherill component of that claim, he has confirmed his belief that it is time for a leadership change. While Foley’s Marble Bar attacker will face the maximum of a low level assault charge, party sources suggest that O’Brien will receive a political death sentence at this week at the earliest.
Speculation of O’Brien’s Ministerial sacking following his Timber-gate gaffe fest seemed puzzling in isolation, especially given the survival of fellow Right wing acolytes Atkinson and Koutsantonis following much greater scandals. When viewed in context of the claimed leadership coup, however, his imminent demise makes much more sense. While Rann is definitely on his “victory lap”, he isn’t gone yet and the Right is still undecided about who will replace him. Allowing a Minister who has publicly undermined the leadership to remain on the front bench is an untenable proposition. Rumours are circulating that he will be "sacked" by the Premier this week, making way for another Right hopeful, most likely Leesa Vlahos. I suspect O’Brien knows his end is near(or he should) and his public pronouncement on the weekend could at least make him appear prophetic when Rann’s time comes. It appears, however, that he has been caught backing both horses (Weatherill in private, Right faction candidate in public) and neither Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau will take this betrayal of faction lightly if the attain the top job. His cross-factional scheme, however, is perhaps evidence of a rift emerging within the Right faction.
While I am no longer privy to all of the internal machinations of the Right faction, I suspect there may be two camps with differing viewpoints on leadership succession. One camp will fight Weatherill’s ascension to the death, even if internal polling or logic suggests that this will lead to political suicide and defeat in 2014. The egos of Koutsantonis, Snelling and Rau would never countenance that their leadership would be a failure, so the anti-Weatherill camp will mainly consist of friends and allies of those MPs and devout Right wing ideologues. The opposing camp of Right faction members would consist of realists that are willing to swallow their pride and acknowledge that Jay is the most likely candidate to deliver a victory to the ALP in 2014. This group would consist of people that are concerned more with self-preservation than factional ideological purity. Michael O’Brien potential falls within this camp, although I suspect that the idea of “leapfrogging” other Right faction rivals for the Deputy position also were motivations. The left faction will come out of this year’s State Convention feeling emboldened, and the metaphoric and actual bruises born by Rann and Foley will only serve to encourage party disunity and agitation. It will take much more than “rousing” speeches by Malinauskas and “contrite” apologies from Michael Brown to reverse the SA ALP’s breakneck momentum towards oblivion. With a competent and united Brumby Government careening towards defeat, the SA ALP can't afford to spend much longer preoccupied with internal division.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Can’t see the forest for the protestors
Governments have much in common with battle ships. In their glory days, both are usually air tight and impervious to the daily stresses placed upon their hulls. During periods of strength, only the strongest torpedo can breach the sturdy exterior. As they age, however, leaks begin to appear, allowing trickles of water inside. The good ship Rann has now reached the point where there are not enough collective fingers to plug the numerous holes that have transformed the lower cabins into aquatic wonderlands. It has reached a point so dire that the majority of the sailors should be eying the life rafts. Party office, however, believes that a mutiny on the Bounty will suddenly breach the voids. There is ample evidence, however, suggesting that this will not be the case.
Various events throughout the life of the Rann Government have been major causes of disenchantment within the rank and file and the union movement. The WorkCover debate, for example, tore a massive hole in the Governments defenses. The recent budget cuts to public sector entitlements served to accentuate this gaping hole, and if not mended will continue to swamp Rann and Co’s every action for the next three years. The union movement has begun to realize that symbolic protest is no longer effective in influencing key Government decision makers. Their attempt to push for “generational change” at this weeks State Convention is not worth the paper it is written on. Soon they will realize that the need to hit the Government where it hurts; the hip pocket and on the ground volunteers during election campaigns. While the Government is facing damaging leaks from the union movement, the seriousness of this pales in comparison to the leaks emerging within the public service.
While union members to have a seat at the ALP table, and are privy to important information gleaned from party functions and internal party events, their access to information is dwarfed by that available to the public service. Also, while the unions may agitate for change within the party, they are less inclined to leak information capable of sinking the Government. (At the end of the day, it is not in their interests to see a change in Government). The recent Michael O’Brien debacle and the Sustainable Budget Commission leak show the damage that a disenchanted public servant can cause. It is hard to say what the motivations of the individual leakers was, but I am sure the arrogant and bullying attitude of Government members and media team operatives is partly to blame. Slashing the entitlements of those responsible for the day to day operation of the Government is also obviously a factor. A change of leader will have a minimal impact on the relationship between the ALP Government and the public service. It is also doubtful that it will improve internal party stability.
The calls for “generational change” at this weekends ALP State Convention are not merely aimed at removing Rann and Foley. The generation that the unions want to take the reigns is the Weatherill generation, which is entirely different to the Koutsantonis/Rau/Snelling generation. MPs from both sides of the factional divide are using Mike Rann’s “victory lap” to discredit contenders from the other side of the factional divide. Rob Lucas had the following to say recently in Parliament;
One cannot walk the corridors of this place, or take a telephone call, without running into some Labor source wanting to leak damaging information against another government MP, wanting to damage first the Premier or the Treasurer and then the leadership contenders as well. The sources from the left are leaking against the Premier and the Treasurer, and any of the contenders from the right, whether it be Messrs Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau; the sources on the right, of course, are busily trying to undermine and damage the reputation of minister Weatherill.
While Mike Rann, as an unaligned member of the old “Centre Left” has been a foil to factional rivalries, his imminent departure will cause the opening of Pandora’s Box. When Rann does go, his replacement will continue to be plagued by damaging leaks. Forces within the left (and the Union movement) will be unsatisfied with any outcome other than Premier Jay. Even if Jay is appeased by placing him in the Deputy position, it would be in his interests to cause the dethroning of the Premier. If, by some amazing twist of fate, Weatherill does reach the Premiership, the Right wing dirt squad will start working in overtime. The O’Brien/Foley brouhaha this week is evidence that there are even differences of opinion within the Right faction. If there is a way to avoid all out factional guerrilla warfare, I certainly can’t see it.
Various events throughout the life of the Rann Government have been major causes of disenchantment within the rank and file and the union movement. The WorkCover debate, for example, tore a massive hole in the Governments defenses. The recent budget cuts to public sector entitlements served to accentuate this gaping hole, and if not mended will continue to swamp Rann and Co’s every action for the next three years. The union movement has begun to realize that symbolic protest is no longer effective in influencing key Government decision makers. Their attempt to push for “generational change” at this weeks State Convention is not worth the paper it is written on. Soon they will realize that the need to hit the Government where it hurts; the hip pocket and on the ground volunteers during election campaigns. While the Government is facing damaging leaks from the union movement, the seriousness of this pales in comparison to the leaks emerging within the public service.
While union members to have a seat at the ALP table, and are privy to important information gleaned from party functions and internal party events, their access to information is dwarfed by that available to the public service. Also, while the unions may agitate for change within the party, they are less inclined to leak information capable of sinking the Government. (At the end of the day, it is not in their interests to see a change in Government). The recent Michael O’Brien debacle and the Sustainable Budget Commission leak show the damage that a disenchanted public servant can cause. It is hard to say what the motivations of the individual leakers was, but I am sure the arrogant and bullying attitude of Government members and media team operatives is partly to blame. Slashing the entitlements of those responsible for the day to day operation of the Government is also obviously a factor. A change of leader will have a minimal impact on the relationship between the ALP Government and the public service. It is also doubtful that it will improve internal party stability.
The calls for “generational change” at this weekends ALP State Convention are not merely aimed at removing Rann and Foley. The generation that the unions want to take the reigns is the Weatherill generation, which is entirely different to the Koutsantonis/Rau/Snelling generation. MPs from both sides of the factional divide are using Mike Rann’s “victory lap” to discredit contenders from the other side of the factional divide. Rob Lucas had the following to say recently in Parliament;
One cannot walk the corridors of this place, or take a telephone call, without running into some Labor source wanting to leak damaging information against another government MP, wanting to damage first the Premier or the Treasurer and then the leadership contenders as well. The sources from the left are leaking against the Premier and the Treasurer, and any of the contenders from the right, whether it be Messrs Koutsantonis, Snelling or Rau; the sources on the right, of course, are busily trying to undermine and damage the reputation of minister Weatherill.
While Mike Rann, as an unaligned member of the old “Centre Left” has been a foil to factional rivalries, his imminent departure will cause the opening of Pandora’s Box. When Rann does go, his replacement will continue to be plagued by damaging leaks. Forces within the left (and the Union movement) will be unsatisfied with any outcome other than Premier Jay. Even if Jay is appeased by placing him in the Deputy position, it would be in his interests to cause the dethroning of the Premier. If, by some amazing twist of fate, Weatherill does reach the Premiership, the Right wing dirt squad will start working in overtime. The O’Brien/Foley brouhaha this week is evidence that there are even differences of opinion within the Right faction. If there is a way to avoid all out factional guerrilla warfare, I certainly can’t see it.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The gift that keeps on giving
A few months ago when some wily public servant leaked a confidential State budget document outlining potential savings measures, the cynics suggested that said leak was a clever “spin” tactic by the Rann Government. While this may have made some sense in the short term, a Government will never benefit from the public disclosure of such an extensive and explicit costing document, especially in the context of a “horror budget” scenario. The Opposition, by having access to said document, is able to highlight any perceived extravagance that was spared the knife, and contrast it to any number of harsh measures implemented in the previous budget. Even the laziest opposition can do a Mary Poppins and thrust their arm into this bag of tricks and pull out a scandal. The current Puglia debacle engulfing the Premier is an example of such a scandal.
At the outset, let me say that I have no idea how beneficial the Puglia-South Australia trade relationship will be. One thing I can say, however, is no electorate will take kindly to being treated as second fiddle to a bunch of “outsiders”. Why should our taxes be spent on the abstract doodles of some I-talian when you are making me redundant? The Premier has always been a fan of his high-profile “gimmick” policies, such as bro-mance with Lance Armstrong. In a comfortable budgetary environment, such indulgences can be tolerated. As public sector unions quietly sharpen their daggers in darkened rooms, however, publicly funded ego stroking is not on. When you add the ingredients of improper motives to the pot, you have one spicy meatball.
The two biggest scandals to have stricken Mike Rann during his term in office have involved his sexual partners, alleged or otherwise. The factor that transforms the Puglia affair from standard Government wastage to high blown scandal is the fact that the Premier’s wife hails from the region. While I sincerely doubt that Rann was operating under any improper motives, the political judgment made in this policy initiative calls into question whether he has completely lost touch with the community he professes to serve. This will be the question that the faceless men within the party are asking.
Internal ALP figures are undoubtedly united in the view that Rann will not be the leader taking the party to the polls in 2014. The question about who will replace him has been fertile grounds for discussion in this blog in the past and can be summarized by the following; nobody knows and we’d prefer not to think about it for now. They would prefer put off this decision for a year or so, but the current Puglia affair may accelerate their thinking. The Right knows that they won’t support Weatherill. By adopting this stance, the faction is following in the foot steps of the NSW Right, who bypassed the obvious successor (in the public’s mind) and installed Iemma. If this action is taken, it will ensure that the anointed will be saddled with the baggage of their ascension from day 1. This is only the beginning of their problems.
In an environment where there is no clear successor (or the clear successor is ignored), the anointed leader will be bedeviled by a caucus and/or cabinet room rife with ambition. By promoting mediocrity, you encourage the mediocre. For example, if the Right appoints John Rau as leader, any number of cabinet members would feel that they are equally as capable. Ensuring unity and loyalty will be difficult, especially if the new leader is struggling. Loyalty from Weatherill can only be achieved by appeasing him with a deputy position, which places him one step away from the throne. The complexity of life after Rann is the very reason why the faceless men don’t want to act yet. Continuing to allow Mike to rot from the end of a rope tethered to the lamp post, however, may cause such a stench that even the freshest smelling leader won’t be able to clear the air.
At the outset, let me say that I have no idea how beneficial the Puglia-South Australia trade relationship will be. One thing I can say, however, is no electorate will take kindly to being treated as second fiddle to a bunch of “outsiders”. Why should our taxes be spent on the abstract doodles of some I-talian when you are making me redundant? The Premier has always been a fan of his high-profile “gimmick” policies, such as bro-mance with Lance Armstrong. In a comfortable budgetary environment, such indulgences can be tolerated. As public sector unions quietly sharpen their daggers in darkened rooms, however, publicly funded ego stroking is not on. When you add the ingredients of improper motives to the pot, you have one spicy meatball.
The two biggest scandals to have stricken Mike Rann during his term in office have involved his sexual partners, alleged or otherwise. The factor that transforms the Puglia affair from standard Government wastage to high blown scandal is the fact that the Premier’s wife hails from the region. While I sincerely doubt that Rann was operating under any improper motives, the political judgment made in this policy initiative calls into question whether he has completely lost touch with the community he professes to serve. This will be the question that the faceless men within the party are asking.
Internal ALP figures are undoubtedly united in the view that Rann will not be the leader taking the party to the polls in 2014. The question about who will replace him has been fertile grounds for discussion in this blog in the past and can be summarized by the following; nobody knows and we’d prefer not to think about it for now. They would prefer put off this decision for a year or so, but the current Puglia affair may accelerate their thinking. The Right knows that they won’t support Weatherill. By adopting this stance, the faction is following in the foot steps of the NSW Right, who bypassed the obvious successor (in the public’s mind) and installed Iemma. If this action is taken, it will ensure that the anointed will be saddled with the baggage of their ascension from day 1. This is only the beginning of their problems.
In an environment where there is no clear successor (or the clear successor is ignored), the anointed leader will be bedeviled by a caucus and/or cabinet room rife with ambition. By promoting mediocrity, you encourage the mediocre. For example, if the Right appoints John Rau as leader, any number of cabinet members would feel that they are equally as capable. Ensuring unity and loyalty will be difficult, especially if the new leader is struggling. Loyalty from Weatherill can only be achieved by appeasing him with a deputy position, which places him one step away from the throne. The complexity of life after Rann is the very reason why the faceless men don’t want to act yet. Continuing to allow Mike to rot from the end of a rope tethered to the lamp post, however, may cause such a stench that even the freshest smelling leader won’t be able to clear the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)