A couple of points that have emerged in the debate over the Labor leadership need a response
First, there’s the claim that there are no policy differences between Rudd and Gillard. This is often presented as if the two had independently arrived at the same position. In fact, as the equation in the post title implies, it’s because Gillard is a policy-free zone. Her independent ventures into policy making amount to a disastrous set of pre-election moves on carbon policy (no tax promise, consultative assembly, cash for clunkers) and a series of failed attempts to resolve the asylum seeker problem. Now that the Rudd agenda has mostly been passed or abandoned, Gillard has no policies whatsoever, a point I made some time ago. Her abandonment of the Gonski report, which she used as an excuse for doing nothing when she was Education Minister, is typical.
Second, and with somewhat more justification, there’s the fact that Gillard has been successful in getting policy passed where Rudd failed. The unusual circumstance of a House of Reps minority has led most people to overstate the relative difficulty of Gillard’s task. She has needed the Greens and three of five independents, normally being Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor. Rudd needed the Greens, Xenophon and Fielding, which was obviously harder. It’s true that Rudd made the mistaken choice of freezing out the Greens and trying to negotiate with the Liberals, which made no sense given that the Greens were bound to hold the balance of power sooner or later. A more comparable test is that of asylum seekers, where Gillard has done no better than Rudd, arguably worse.
*This equation was allegedly written by a notable, but somewhat obscure economist with his own name in the place of Rudd, and that of a better-known researcher in the same filed in the place of Gillard
John Quiggin 
@Chris Warren
Opps, yes,
Ministry omissions:
Carr – Rudd
Julie Collins – Unknown
#48 sums it up nicely. I would only add that if we evaluate what Rudd is DOING, as opposed to what everyone concerned is SAYING, he may well concur and be in the vanguard of the change. He is not a stupid man and must know his actions will split the Party, not lead to a triumphant return to The Lodge.
Sorry I meant #42 more than #48.
Nicola Roxan giving more detail of haphazard way Kevin’s “vision” evolved:
Ms Roxon also rejected Mr Rudd’s assertion today that the watered down health reform deal that was eventually struck between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the states did not go through a proper cabinet process.
“This is just a complete joke and it’s such a joke because we went through a very detailed health reform process with Kevin as prime minister and we were able to progress an enormous amount of things that he should be proud of and I am proud of as well,” Ms Roxon said.
“But many of those things, including the biggest proposals that Kevin wanted to act on, he wanted with four days notice on one occasion that I can recollect, to take over the entire health system, didn’t have any materials for cabinet, didn’t have legal advice.”
Ms Roxon said that was a “ludicrous” way to run a government.
“We didn’t do that, because we were able to talk Kevin into some sense.”
With the increasing detail of the haphazard style of leadership and management, it amazes me that they are any supporters of Rudd at all in the government. To push for him is a push for mere (ill founded) populism over substance.
@steve from brisbane
I know Smith and Plibersek support Gillard. What they refused to support last night on Lateline was the ‘Comrade Rudd is a counterrevolutionary’ crap coming from Gillard, Swann and others and eagerly adopted by some commenters on this blog.
Let’s get real and grow up.
The idea that Rudd could form a credible government with Gillard, Swan, Burke, Crean, Roxon, Conroy and other former ministers sitting on the backbenches is absurd.
Whatever Rudd’s positive qualities, which are no doubt boundless in his own mind, his becoming leader would be a disaster.
He will almost certainly lose on Monday. The challenge for the ALP and the caucus is how to neutralise his poisonous presence on the backbenches. That will require some very sharp discussions with his supporters about their future conduct and their long-term futures as elected representatives.
Rudd needs to be removed from parliament as soon as possible. Difficult but essential.
Mike it will be equally difficult for Ferguson, Carr, McClelland and perhaps Bowen to continue to serve as ministers in a Gillard Government, thus my comment #2.
@Alan
So where is there evidence for “Comrade rudd is a counter-revolutionary” from Gillard, Swan and others.
@Mike
Further, if Rudd gets more than 35 votes (looking unlikely), these issues/problems will persist.
Troy – the best result would be a vote of less than 30. The less the better. The resulting humiliation may force Rudd, even with his monumental political ego, to conclude that there is little point in remaining in parliament.
Perhaps Gillard could then offer him a suitable diplomatic post – in Syria? Iraq?
all gossip and surmise to one side the part played by the “news” broadcasters in all this is what has caught my attention.
the spotlight is about to be trained on media ownership.
the absolute paucity of info on what is happening to the murdoch empire in UK&USA.
except to say the Oz arm has done a thorough search of local systems and has found no.repeat.no.incriminating emails.
you betcha.
the austar and fox merger in limbo at the mo.
the trickle of info about somthing to do with the ABC and fox.
Rudds preference (vaguely remembered)before being relieved of the PM possie for something to do with a contract for fox.
what a small suspicious mind .
What can one say John, as the revelations come one one after the other, it is clear your on the wrong side of the track.
The Rudd thing is a bit of a paradox, one the one hand he has the intelligence to generate good policy and he does have legitimacy to the throne ie he led the party to an election win and he chose the members and cabinet, in defiance of the collective. But is unable to delegate authority and is a poor manager and a poor leader.
On the other hand a significant if not major proportion of the electorate believe that whatever Rudds failings they elected him, it was their choice and to have their choice overridden by some secret society is not on.
And that is where it lies, deomcracy should prevail and in doing so it could destroy the alp.
It is interesting see people get so heated about who and how the ALP will select as next leader of the opposition.
The reason why any of this is going on is because of the polls. It wouldn’t matter if Rudd or Gillard were leader. Tony Abbot has done a sterling job in convincing the Labor working class voters that the carbon tax will make them worse off. Its also a message that the working class are getting from their employers.
The senior journalists for the Murdoch press are no doubt working on the story lines for Monday. ‘Dark Days for Democracy’. ‘Abbott handed victory on a plate’. ‘We’re stuck with the worst prime minister in a century’.
It’s as if our national news network was run by twelve year olds.
I’m seeing lots of parallels between this and other upcoming elections elsewhere (Obama in the States, Sarkozy in France, Putin in Russia to name a few). In each case, it’s the “lesser of two evils” line that’s being repeated by many.
I’ve never met Rudd or Gillard. However, let’s assume that the MSM has actually reported some facts. Example: Rudd is a poor manager and extremely short-tempered(yes, I’m being polite). Assuming that’s true, in this stressful economy, would YOU want to work for someone like that? Even if the salary grade is higher than in the private sector, is it worth the stress?
Gillard has no policies and is presenting a bad image to other countries. Is that totally based on facts, sexism or both?
To those who say Abbot would be better, I disagree. On this, I agree with Rudd. Consistently in his comments and recent on-the-job actions, he’s behind the times. Then, to somehow laugh it off with a who cares attitude isn’t good enough (IMO).
If Rudd loses the vote on Monday, would he quit Parliament and just be another pundit? I seriously doubt it. One reason is because at least he admits the truth that global warming is real. He may not be the perfect politician. Then again, how many other world leaders are admitting the truth and realizing that somebody has to pay for it?
Whilst this has been a particularly nasty, ugly week from cabinet, I’ve actually been reasonably impressed with both Gillard’s and Rudd’s performances with their public deliveries.
If he really spits that infamous dummy (again) and resigns politics, that would likely royally screw everything up for everyone other than Abbott.
I am amused at the way a number of former cabinet colleagues are saying Kevin Rudd is a big, bad bully and if they have to work with him again they will cry. I mean to say, these are all adult, hard bitten, Labor politicians and apparatchiks who came up through the streetfighting, infighting and backstabbing of the ALP (and unions) and not only survived, but prospered. These people are not shrinking violets nor are they pansies – to use a few flowery metaphors. The claim that they cannot cope with working with Rudd is a big furphy, a big meat pie, a lie.
A lie of equal proportions (being pushed by Julia Gillard) is that Kevin Rudd is some kind of unstable sociopath (I mean more so than most politicians are anyway). Well hello! Julia made him Foreign Minister. What must that say about her judgement if it is true?
The facts of the matter are that;
(1) Everyone is lying out of reputation-covering, self-interest and ambition. (This includes Kevvy too.)
(2) The mining corporates have already told the ALP who must be PM (or the donations will stop).
This is quite a good article by someone reasonably close to Rudd that bears out what I was saying – that the guy is a walking disaster zone.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/time-we-heard-truth-about-the-real-kevin-20120224-1ttrw.html
In summary, James Button says “Look, I don’t know either of them at all but Kevvie is horrible and Julia is wonderful. Can anyone else spot the glaring error in his reasoning?
Can anyone recall that ABC show about Julia Gillard? I don’t even recall the title or show as I caught it after the opening credits. However, it took a low key, plain documentary style just showing Julia speaking over the years as she made her way through politics. There was no editorialising and the excerpts of Julie were long enough to give context and were thus clearly not taken out of context. The juxtaposition of her statements over the years revealed a person who occupied no real position and changed her position at will every time (often to the dimetric opposite) for pure political expediency.
Ikonoclast @20:
“(2) The mining corporates have already told the ALP who must be PM (or the donations will stop).”
If you make claims like this you really do need to provide the evidence. If you can’t furnish evidence don’t clog up the thread with childish crap.
The other point I wanted to make is that Rudd’s “big ideas” John talks about are actually from things like the Henry review, and think tank reports. Gillard can read these reports as well as anyone, and actually implement them.
@Mel
Please google for “Mining industry dug deep to shaft Rudd over tax” by Mark Davis, written on February 2, 2011. (The Age)
“HOW much does it cost to bring down a prime minister? The answer: just a tad over $22 million. That’s how much the mining industry spent in just six weeks last year on its political campaign against Kevin Rudd’s plan for a resource super profit tax.”
This is actually cheaper than the “revolution” in Georgia which replaced Shevardnadze with Saakashvili. This ultimate act of democracy cost Soros USD42mln (source: Wikipedia).
Anyway this ALP / Abbott saga is getting more and more boring. We really should outsource our government and legislative to Serco and invite professional comedians like Sasha Baron Cohen to entertain us by running the daily show in Canberra. He has a lot of relevant experience as a statesman and looks really great. Not only the “Coal-ition” but also ALP support privatisation of essential services and market-driven solutions which lead to efficient allocation of resources.
dear Ikonoclast
i hear you – i’m with you on this one. but i’m not sure big coal has it wrapped up quite as much as they’d like this time, because (1) the machinations are more out in the open, and (2) the caucus is involved from the beginning. this time around its a bit more democratic & from a corporate interventionist’s point of view, more messy & uncertain of outcome.
i see rudd’s appealing to the populace to contact their alp reps directly as a gambit to outflank the mining corporations & their thanes in the right faction of the alp, and to work more directly on the caucus members & not through their factions, for the obvious reasons that (1) factional resources are denied them, and (2) the factions are white anted by corporate tools.
if rudd gets back i’ll read it as a setback locally & internationally for corporations in their depredations against nation states. i’d wager alison redford in alberta, confronting big oil over royalties after ed stelmach’s dismissal & facing a provincial election soon, is watching this contest with some interest and would take heart should rudd win.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
I remember the manner in which John Howard became prime minister: it took at least three serious attempts, and some, on occasion, incredibly vicious fights against other Liberal party members (Malcolm Fraser?, Andrew Peacock, Andrew Peacock again, John Hewson, and Alexander Downer), before Howard came out on top. During those fights and periods of sin-binning, John Howard figured out the mechanics of discipline. Whether you admire him or despise him isn’t my point; rather, he evolved over time from a one-time spiteful player to the guy that locked the ALP out of policy making for a decade or so.
The ALP leadership contention could, possibly, show Rudd evolving along a similar path. One thing is very clear though: if Rudd succeeds at the count, he will have to show much better people management skills than he has to date. His pathological “work-ethic” is one such item he must curtail, for it just leads to burn-out of his staff for no good reason I can fathom.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Rudd actually manages to muster the numbers, or close to the numbers, by the time of the Caucus meeting. After all, he can threaten to resign outright, ie from government entirely, something that might persuade a few of the nervous Nellies to sway his way.
Finally, the more I hear about how Rudd is dysfunctional, the more it puts Julia Gillard in stark relief, and not in a good way. Rudd wanted an ETS; she wanted to ban it some time before Rudd tossed it in, leaving Rudd no alternative but to give it away. Then there is the “real” Julia fiasco, an idea that was so boneheadedly daft as to be in a category all of its own. The tent embassy thing. All the things Pr Q has mentioned in this post. And so on. As a deputy PM, Julia was a great asset; as PM, dishwater holds greater lustre.
The pursuit of the nuclear strategy, to completely destroy Kevin Rudd has failed, as illustrated by Anthony Alabanese’s support today. In the light of the polling, reinforced by the current results, this was always a deeply flawed, misconstrued approach. I think it is the case now that Julia Gillard cannot sustain her leadership, that electoral defeat is more or less inevitable. Whatever her qualities, especially in the context of a minority government, she should now resign. That would mean that the caucus spill motion would need to be postponed to allow any alternative contenders for the parliamentary leadership of the ALP to step forward.
The biggest problem for Gillard is that her words, upon taking office from Kevin Rudd, were: “This was a government that had lost its way.”
Well, how has she ensured that it has found its way, since she uttered those words? If she cannot answer that, then I think she has problems.
Wonder if a dark horse will put their hand up at the last second? That could split the vote, making the choice of leader even more murky.
At least James Button qualifies as a source of primary evidence, having met Kevin Rudd four times and therefore obviously having access to the innermost circles of the government. So let’s accept his conclusions. Rudd was impossible to work for. Hopeless.
Nicola Roxon has given an example (see #4). Having a PM interfere in the responsibilities of a minister like that must have been intolerable. No doubt that is why she did the principled thing and res … oh wait, she didn’t. But at least it accounts for all the other resignations by ministers who couldn’t abide this ‘impossible to work with’ management style. Oh hang on, that’s not right either. I don’t remember anyone resigning in protest at this purportedly intolerable management style that was doing so much damage to the government (and therefore to Australia). Remarkable. But they are all honourable men and women so we cannot doubt their motives.
I don’t know if many people have called Andrew Peacock morally courageous but at least he once resigned his ministry in protest at his his PM’s management style, and told the parliament and the Australian people why. “Not to be endured’ he called it if I recall correctly. Apparently that never occurred to all the ministers who now tell us what a dreadful PM Kevin Rudd was. They endured the unendurable. Not that I want to criticise them because they are all honourable men and women.
The deputy leader loyally covered the back of her boss even though he was impossible to work with. She never seemed to think she might owe a duty to her party and the electorate to resign in protest six months before the next election, so everyone could get to hear the evidence and make up their own minds. No, she just pretended everything was fine, which seems a bit odd but I do not criticise her because she is an honourable woman. So were they all, all honourable men and women.
No, nobody seems to have thought of doing anything like resigning, even with this dysfunctional maniac prime minister destroying Australia’s future. They just got on with their work like brave little soldiers until union hacks like Paul Howes told them it was time to change leaders before Rudd won another election and really screwed the factional system, whereupon they did the deed overnight and immediately called an election to stop anyone in the parliamentary party questioning events too closely.
And to cap it all, they gave one of the most senior and important ministries in the new government to the bloke they all agree is impossible to work with. Why do they hate the poor bloody public servants at DFAT? Even newly-annointed expert insider James Button concedes this was a bit strange. But I am sure there were good reasons not related to self-interest, because they are all honourable men and women.
This is the narrative they now try to sell us. Rudd was an appalling tyrant who destroyed the government but they declined to do the most obvious thing to correct the situation by resigning in protest. Even if it is true, it reveals them to be a bunch of unprincipled spineless jellyfish who aren’t fit to run a students’ union (which seems to be where most of them learnt their political tactics), let alone a country.
@Donald Oats Taking that a little further, it is now up to Julia to take control of the situation and properly establish her credentials as a leader.
That is, showing the way.
Julia has destroyed herself, Rudd and possibly the Labor Party itself. She has not only written Abbot’s campaign themes she has done most of the pre-production for him. All he needs to do is ass the Elecoral Act authorisation at the end.
What seems most clear is that Kevin Rudd is charming words while Julia Gillard is action. Kevin Rudd will try hard for the numbers but a Labor Party that takes the Survivor approach will be quickly voted off the island. Going with Rudd will be a choice to go down with the Titanic if being voted off the island isn’t enough.
What is needed at this point is a refusal to go along with madness which is what a Rudd choice would be. Rog is right that she needs to show the same steely reserve that she had in the courtyard last week.
To borrow some Pat Flannery phrasing:
Alas, the Titanic already has a 50ft gouge in its bow with 2 Costa Concordia captains battling for the wheel and the entire Coalition Shadow Cabinet on deck cheering them on. Going down looks somewhat unavoidable.
How is Gillard action? How is enacting watered-down versions of the Rudd agenda in a a much more favorable legislative environment a credential for action?
Julia Gillard has managed to get more through the parliament with a hung lower house than Rudd managed in all his time because he refused to work with the Greens. It may be less than desired but the emissions trading plan is better than Rudd’s.
Rudd has been helped by the Murdoch media which has sold more papers than it would have otherwise but they are supporting Rudd because he has been far more sympathetic to them than the current regime. Rudd would have happily handed over the overseas broadcasts to Sky and he no doubt will water down the current media enquiry if he is selected. Just before he is toppled by Tony Abbott.
Gillard has a friendly senate. Although she does not have a majority in the house 4 of the independents are well-disposed to her government and programme. Rudd has a amjority in the house but an unfriendly senate.
Gillard herself was one of those who advocated not dealing with the Greens during the Rudd government and whose personal opposition to the CPRS went well beyond mere cabinet advocacy. What she in fact proposed was co-operating with Tony Abbot in a direct action plan.
You can see the Gillard plan in action with her idea for the Malaysia Solution where she thinks it better to beseech Abbot for support than to deal with the Greens and make concessions on offshore processing. About the only steely quality is the knife she is willing to sink into her opponents within the ALP.
The rest is pure rightwing blancmange.
This is getting like the breakup of a marriage, the parents are arguing over the assets and the kids are traumatised.
I WAS WRONG
The take-home lesson from the disastrous ALP leadership stoush is the complete and abject failure of ALP insider politics in particular and political elitism in general. The only justification for Machiavellian politics, most notoriously practised by the NSW Right from Graeme Richardson through to Mark Arbib, is political success. But the Arbib-Bitar method has turned a potentially successful ALP government into a circular firing squad.
The political implosion of Gough’s moralistic politics was shattering to many ALP supporter. So for a long time – roughly from the rise of Hawke through the demise of Carr – I thought that the Machiavellian mode of political activity was acceptable so long as it delivered results.
Arguably it did, the Hawke-Keating government did much good. Whilst Wran and Carr at least seemed to be reasonably competent and not corrupt – they set the bar low in Sydney! But it stinks of failure now, from the catastrophic degeneration of NSW ALP through to the slow-motion car-wreck of Federal ALP.
Gillard bought into the Richardson-Arbib method and is now reaping the bitter harvest. Politics as a machine-operated, spin-doctored, spoils-distributing form of post-modernism. With the people looking on with a mixture of bemusement and irritation at the unseemly spectacle.
So I was wrong to champion Machiavellianism and Pr Q was right to take the high moral ground, in this department at least. Of course there are still cases where Machiaveillianism is justified, but it requires a much higher calibre of political leader (eg De Gaulle) and only as a one-off when the stakes are high (apres the liberation). It doesnt work well as a politics as usual MO, especially in a savvy and cynical electorate.
What irks me is that I should have tumbled to this earlier since FWIW, my entire critique of post-modern liberalism is based on a rejection of elitism in New Right financial and New Left cultural domains. Machiavellianism is the ultimate form of political elitism I should have applied my own principles to this ghastly practice. Obviously there is a temptation for people to carry on like insiders but the truth is “no one knows anything”.
More generally, populism is based on the evolutionary principle of subjecting population members to on-going critical selection by the environment, which in this case is the electorate. Elitism is a way of avoiding proper selection processes. It is a form of cheating the test.
Rudd is taking a populist approach so I would have support him even though I can’t stand the guy’s personality and find his “Big Australia” policy to be fundamentally destructive of social democracy. But at least he is committed to keeping the “faceless men” in line. I trust the people to keep him in line.
@rog
That is actually a faithful image. When one of the parties to a divorce lines up proxies to call the other a ‘psychopath’ they are generally not, despite all the steely and passionate avowals in the world, acting in the best interest of their kids.
Anthony Albanese by his own account consulted with people around him, including ALP members and perhaps voters generally. He then reached his own decision. What a novel approach for a democratic representative? He must believe that he gained his seat from the support of the branch members and not the power brokers. Things may be different in the Illawarra, given the prevailing party culture, but the electorate behavior has significantly changed, which should be cause for pause for the representatives of the people, but probably won’t be.
The only consolation is that the lib/nat coalition shares the same characteristics of the labor marriage.
As JQ has previously noted principles are mandatory for good governance and the alp have woken up to find that they have none. Which puts them on par with the lib/nat coalition, tweedledum and tweedeldee.
@Jack Strocchi
Rudd used “faceless men” more than anyone else.
He deliberately briefed four journalists privately so they would not identify his face to the public, and have not even identified their own ‘faces”.
So when Rudd rants about the faceless men – this is an act of guilt.
I think this article by Maxine McKew is very damaging to the pro-Gillard camp and completely contradicts many of their claims. McKew confirms that Gillard (with Mark Arbib) was the prime instigator of the disastrous ETS backflip; it also demolishes the autocratic excuse for the 2010 coup. McKew says what many here have said – the coup was just about seizing power.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/united-we-stand-divided-we-fall-20120225-1tvur.htm
And ‘shirt-fronting’ is such a great addition to the political dictionary.
Chris Warren @ #43 said:
Rudd might have gotten his hands dirty but at least he is a populist which means he is always redeemable in the eyes of the public. Not so the back-room boys.
The phrase “faceless men” is a metaphor for all that is wrong with the so-called Machiavellian elements of the ALP. That is, the insider political culture of machine-operating, focus-grouping, spin-doctoring, spoils-distributing factional heavy-weights. They kid themselves that they are the “hard men” who’ve “got the numbers” to do “whatever it takes” to “put the fix in” and get a “done deal”.
In reality they are only pseudo-Machiavellians: a life-time ministerial pension is difficult to justify as a good end for the public and the means they choose are obviously not fit for purpose going by the historic drubbing into which they are heading.
The public are not mugs. Australia has always had one of the savviest electorates in the world, and most voters now have some form of tertiary education. They might cop a swifty now and then, but they won’t wear this constant contempt from their leaders.
True they are a bit cranky now, possibly a bit of outer-suburban mortgage stress contributing to sales resistance to the carbon tax. But mostly they are pi**ed off with politicians abusing their trust.
If Rudd’s challenge lances this boil in the party’s butt then at least it will have achieved something, which is vindicate the principle of popular legitimacy. Hopefully he will win, reconnect with the electorate and go on to beat Abbott.
@Socrates
Yep, Maxine McKew sums it up perfectly;
“Many Australians have not forgiven Gillard for cutting down a first-term prime minister and then trying to pretend that it was in the national interest to do so. The struggles she has had since the disastrous election campaign of August 2010 to establish her own authentic brand of leadership can all be traced back to the early months of 2010. In forcing a policy backflip on a cause she advocated in 2007, she has defined herself forever as just another political operator. Her constant mantra of ”getting the job done” earns no credit. The effort is seen as tainted.
It’s because there was never a plan for what to do next. There was only ever a plan to knock off Rudd.”
Rudd’s hands are more than dirty – they are blackened with rotton politics as an instigator, not respondent.
Factions are normal and healthy, and exist in society at large and right through life even into the smallest office where office politics often erupts. Unions, churches, the media, and social movements all have factions. Even families have factions.
Factions are the only way most rank-and-filers get to have a say.
@Socrates
Maxine McKew is not a disinterested observer.
Christ,
Most of Gillard’s cabinet are not disinterested either, when they criticise Rudd. The question is whether McKew is being honest. If so, Gillard’s stated reasons for seizing power are self- serving lies.