Kevin Rudd - a weak leader?

Here's a very thoughtful piece from Ben Eltham from "New Matilda", on Kevin Rudd's climate change backflip.

"Climate change was not some minor election promise thrown out in the heat of the campaign. It was a centrepiece of Labor’s 2007 election platform. It was Kevin Rudd as opposition leader who commissioned Ross Garnaut to begin work on fashioning Labor’s climate change policy.

Strong action on climate was a key plank in Labor’s campaign material and its election ads. Remember the TV commercial depicting a sleeping John Howard? "Now he’s finally said Australia needs an emissions scheme, but he won’t set targets until after the election," the ad proclaimed. Now that he’s in government, neither will Kevin Rudd.

This backflip is staggering, even for those of us who have come to expect policy timidity from the Rudd Government."

http://newmatilda.com/2010/04/28/great-moral-backflip-our-time


To be honest, I've never been able to fully understand how Rudd's ETS was supposed to work - especially the bit about
paying the biggest polluters millions of dollars in compensation so they wouldn't keep polluting. But to have no
policy at all is staggering.

While it's true that Rudd couldn't get an ETS through the parliament now, if he went for a double dissolution, and
won a couple of extra Senate seats, their terms would be backdated from July 1st 2010, so he wouldn't have to wait
until July next year to have control of the Senate. So why are we now talking 2013?

Rudd has proven to be a very poor strategist, and it's just crazy that Abbott, who looks madder every time he opens
his mouth, is able to keep scoring points. This shouldn't be happening. If this keeps up, Rudd will win the next
election, but far from gaining more seats, he'll be lucky to hold on to what he's got in the Lower House. I doubt
he'll be leading Labor to a third election if he can't do better than this.

What a huge disappointment he is. In the end, just another politician.

We have managed to avoid suffering the full effects of the GFC. There has now, for the first time in ages, been an emphasis (as well as money and legislation) in upgrading national infrastructure and reforming system structures. This despite an opposition run by an insane religious fundamentalist who are trying so desperately to white ant this country, destroy its reputation, scare us into another recession, turn people against eachother and pray that people are dying just so the Government can look bad, and a media that essentially have prewritten editorials waiting to condemn Rudd regardless of his actions or inactions. Notably, every time something has been done, the opposition and the media have started the counter-meme of Rudd being an extremist one termer.

The meme is also there to justify Tony Abbott shooting his mouth off and not thinking before he speaks ("Sure, he said he wants to random execute Australians to stop overpopulation and thinks we should blow up the moon to stop the tides from coming in, but at least Abbott stands for something")

I mean sure, he has done (or not done) quite a few things that have displeased me, and yes, he is bit further to the right than I'd like, but I am very satisfied with his first term as PM and heartily endorse a second term.

And yes, he is another politician, just like all the rest of them - including the Mad Monk and St. Bob!

It's generally balanced though, and not simply a left-wing rant.

I confess that I am disappointed, particularly insofar as Rudd hasn't had the courage to trade on his political
capital to promote climate change legislation, which will be even harder once his ratings begin to slide, as they
inevitably will.

I do agree absolutely with Ben Eltham that Rudd made a huge mistake in not negotiating with the Greens on climate
change. I understand all too well that to be seen to be attacking the biggest polluters would make his life very
difficult, but the huge compensation he offered made a mockery of the whole idea. The Greens proposal appears to be
much less complex and wouldn't involve big payouts to the coal industry, mining companies, etc. And while it
couldn't get through the Senate with Green support alone, it might well have been possible to get Nick Xenophon on
side. And worst case scenario - it has to wait until after the election, but why 2013?

Of course he deserves a second term, and he'll get it, but I hope he doesn't turn out to be yet another leader who
thinks only as far as the next election. His health reform (as far as I can understand it) is long-term planning
in the best sense, although it remains to be seen whether it will get bogged down in bureaucratic red tape. But
by leaving climate change for another three years, he's not allowed himself time to put anything in place before
the election of that year, and he may never be given another opportunity such as he would have now.

I find that very sad and disappointing, especially given that his popularity is still far ahead of anyone the
Coalition can produce. He can afford to take a risk now; he won't be able to later on as the wheel turns back to
the Coalition, especially if he's facing Joe Hockey in 2013 - he's personally very popular with the electorate,
on both sides of the divide, although whether he's strong enough to be a good leader remains to be seen.

I wasn't having a go at you or attacking your source.

I am just fed up with this ongoing attack on the Rudd government from the usual reactionaries in the mainstream media, as well as a few on the left who think things just magically happen if you want them to.

I can assure you I am not very pleased with Rudd's attitude of "it can wait a couple of years" about the ETS. Not because I am a fan of that exact policy, but because he is essentially deferring action on climate change for a few years, which gives the electorate the impression that climate change that pressing of an issue (and with the suggestive aid of Andrew Bolt et al, isn't an issue at all)

I just worry that Australia may be tricked into electing a nasty, bigoted sociopath to be PM, so I guess I have been a bit soft on Rudd, in order to not tarnish his image from within - which I guess can be perceived as enabling him. I assure you, that is not my intention.

However the expectation will be for the Rudd government to spend some of its political capital in its second term. If it is this cautious in term 2, then come the 2013 (or whenever) election, he's gonna find it a lot harder to find defenders.

I think he got the leadership because Hockey miscalculated - he didn't really want to challenge Turnbull, but was
prepared to take over if Turnbull lost the ballot. I don't think anybody really expected that it would be Abbott.

Yes, stranger things have happened - I wouldn't ever have thought Howard would have got elected either, so you
can never be sure of anything in politics.

But I'm not sure what game Rudd is playing right now ...

It really could be Prime Minister Abbott by the end of this year.

The Henry tax review (weak though it is), could well claw back a few vital points for Rudd, but it's going to be
touch and go.

He really has made a huge strategic blunder with climate change, and it calls into question both his integrity and
his political judgment.

He was elected on a promise to act quickly and decisively on climate change, and he's banged that drum solidly for
three years. He told us that it was the most important issue of our time, and that he and his whole family had a
strong personal commitment to it.

Now he says it isn't important after all. He looks very much like a man with no beliefs, only opportunism. On a
personal level, he looks like a man who cannot be trusted. On a political level, he has allowed Tony Abbott to set
the agenda. He won't recover from this.

I'll make a prediction - win or lose, this is the last election Kevin Rudd will fight as Labor leader. He has never
enjoyed a high level of personal support within the party, and now that he's on the nose with the public, he can't
call in personal favours or count on friends to support him.

He's really blown it.

He hates the right things, and that is all that matters in this southern cross tattoo culture...

Essentially Rudd is doing what every other PM post-Whitlam has done in his first term, settle in, set the tone and try to get what they can get done with a usually difficult Senate. Rudd however has had to contend with a media that from day one was pushing the meme of him being a one termer. Considering the shit thrown against and the extreme double standards that have been held against the Government, as compared with the Howard Government, it's amazing he's polling that high.

I also must wish a pox on anyone who is thinking of (directly or through preferences) voting for Tony Abbott because they don't like Rudd's inaction on climate change. Voting in a climate change denier whose policy - judging by the current thought bubble trend - probably involves concentration camps, just to prove a point is more pathetic than pathetic...

To be honest, I do not care for Rudd, he's too bureaucratic. However, it is too late for someone to take over the leadership, but I agree he won't be leading the ALP into the following election, regardless of this year's outcome.

Should be noted though that this poll is probably slightly outlier (it's probably more like 51-49 for the government) and this poll happened after a series of disastrous events for the Government. Not too mention that it's only a 2 point deficit. Every Government would have been a one termer if a 2 point deficit spelled doom for the government.

Hopefully, it jolts the Labor party into action and not just try and cruise into a second term...

but nobody other than the already converted would take any notice anyway. Of course, they were quick to gloat over
the minimal slides he experienced after Abbott's election, but in reality, he was only back to where he was when
he won office and was poised for another win. I don't think anybody pretended otherwise, probably not even Abbott
in his heart of hearts.

Then Rudd lost his mind.

Following on the insulation scandal - and it is a scandal, no beatup there - you'd think he'd tread carefully and
try not alienate any more voters. Certainly, those on the left aren't going to vote for the Coalition, but there
were centrists who cared enough about climate change to give him their vote last time, and they'll be gone. It's
so hard to take a guess at what he thought he was doing when he made that pronouncement.

The Nielsen Poll will be the one to take note of, because (a) it's generally a bit more balanced than Newspoll; and
(b) it will take into account the reaction to the Henry tax review, which should be favourable to the government
amongst ordinary voters.

I hope he can come up with something to shore up enough points for a win, because the thought of Abbott taking over
is too dreadful to contemplate.

Then - hello, Julia.

be mindful of thought processes like that. It's easy to believe that because something is so blatantly obvious to you, it must be so to everyone else. The fact is, you just need to listen in (or if you are more polite, engage in) on a conversation about the days issues and you'll be surprised how many of those Murdoch talking points are parroted like gospel. This is from every day laypeople with middle ground political opinion, if not slightly inclined toward Labor.

Never underestimate the poison of the media: it turned Mike Rann, a popular Premier, into an adulterous scoundrel who always lies, and has done nothing in the 8 years except wreck an economy (despite the fact that SA has been economically strong, seen record growth and investment, and the personal character flaws to this day are unproven) in just a couple of months; someone who was going to win the election easily to someone who lost the popular vote and won only by a strong marginal campaign (the newspaper then went on to push the meme that Rann and Labor cheated.) This is the scum we deal with. They're wicked, and they're influential.

I am not panicked about this poll as others are though. It seems a bit too roguish, and for some reason a lot of the Greens preferences have seemed to flow toward the Libs (I refuse to believe that will happen.) It's also after a fortnight when the government dumped a lot of its bad news and Tony Abbott wasn't that vocal. Once things are normal again for the government and Abbott opens his mouth again, the numbers should change in Labor's favour again. Probably.

If anything, hopefully this shakes any and all Laborites out of complacency...

are only since he dumped the ETS.

To an extent, that may reflect my friends' attitudes, because most of them are Labor/Green supporters to whom this
is an important issue. The insulation scheme made all of us wince, but more were inclined to blame Peter Garrett
than Rudd (which may not be entirely fair). Ditto for schools buildings and child care centres - these are not
issues that are of primary concern.

But climate change is, and I do feel a level of distrust for Rudd that I didn't think I'd feel this early in his
leadership, and that's mainly because he's not doing any of the things that many other countries are doing,
regardless of international agreements. I'm getting my information from overseas websites, not from our local
media.

We could be developing alternative and renewable energy sources, but we're not, and people who've invested heavily
in these industries look like going bust, because they believed in Rudd's early rhetoric. Even China is doing more
than we are in looking for other ways of creating energy.

But Rudd has dumped the ETS and is proposing nothing at all to take its place, not this year, not next year or the
year after. If he hadn't talked it up for the past three years, we wouldn't be shocked, but he lied to us, plain
and simple. Climate change was never anything more to him than an election winner.

Would it change my vote? Of course not, and Rudd knows that we have nowhere to go. But in the Senate, it could
be a different story. Antony Green is predicting between six and eight Green Senate seats, depending on whether
there is a double dissolution or a regular half-Senate election, but either way, it's not going to be plain sailing
for Labor in the Senate. The figures make very interesting reading.

The Nielsen Poll, out today, confirms the Newspoll, and it's generally regarded as a pretty balanced poll. The
two major parties are on 50% after preferences - when the Opposition leader is a ratbag, that's really bad.

It's a huge worry that Rudd should be losing so much ground to Abbott, of all people. He's not only a nutter, but
he has no policies of his own, and is simply attacking everything Rudd says and does. Unfortunately, Rudd is
saying and doing enough of the wrong things to give him plenty of ammunition.

If Rudd could announce some policy that would take action towards capping emissions, or boosting renewables and
do it fast, he might retrieve some lost ground. I don't think Stephen Conroy's Internet Filter will do it for
Labor.

I know first term governments who've won with a big swing seldom repeat the performance in a second election, but
I'd hoped they might win one or two seats more in the Senate so they could at least get legislation through. Now
it looks very much as though the Greens will pick up extra seats instead. That's good for the country, but it
will mean that Rudd will go down in history as a failed leader. All he has done so far is prevent us going into
recession, but the price paid does nullify some of the good.

I never thought this would happen so soon.