Sheldon: Rudd, the Diet-Howard of the New Generation?
Saturday, October 13th, 2007
Can you see where I’m going to go with this?
We haven’t talked about the McClelland speech on here and the reaction to it so I’ll give a quick refresher. Labor’s foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland (by the way, was I the only one who didn’t know who this guy was until this came up?) announced in a speech his plan for a regional campaign by Labor if they won government to stop the death penalty that is currently occurring in some countries in Asia. Apparently everyone was up in arms about this, especially the government, and Rudd said the timing of the speech “insensitive”, what with the anniversary of the Bali bombings and all. He then went on to say that a Labor government would only intervene on behalf of Australian citizens facing execution overseas and that the Labor Party’s policy on this was the same as the Liberals (we’re certainly hearing that alot lately).
Apart from the general hypocrisy from both sides that think it’s fine to execute terrorists who kill Australians but not Australians who are arrested overseas and so forth, the whole issue didn’t look very good for Rudd. The interesting question I think is whether this was supported by Rudd when the speech was vetted but he left McClelland hanging out to dry when he saw the reaction. I tend to think his department would have stopped that speech going out if they knew but in politics you never know.
Interestingly enough, I was discussing this issue with one of my pinko, lefty, philosophy student friends and he was absolutely filthy about what happened. I’d imagine quite a few of the lefties would be unhappy with Rudd’s reaction. Of course, I’m not sure this will help Howard a great deal as these people would probably be more likely to clubs seals and eat at McDonalds then vote for Howard. Not that I’m generalising at all.
The Indigenous referendum was an interesting issue. Oh I agree that it’s fairly obvious attempt for currying favour close to an election but it’s a positive step forward, regardless of when it occurs. To be honest, if we didn’t have elections we’d probably never get any hospital or road upgrades. Makes me wish that I lived in a marginal seat to reap some of the benefits for once. But I used to live in Lilley, home of Wayne Swan and although it fell to the Liberals in 1996 they were never going to hold it so we didn’t get millions of dollars in bribe money unfortunately. Oh I got derailed again, where was I?
Labor supported the plan. As has become fairly usual in this pre-campaign. Brad talks about saying sorry and I have no problems with that happening but let’s not talk about the Labor Party as the champion of the indigenous people of Australia when all they’ve offered a similar symbolic gesture. It’s more copying from the Labor Party. Rudd didn’t even really get up in arms about the timing.
Also recently we had the pulp mill in Tasmania where Rudd and probably the greatest sell-out in Australian political history, Peter Garrett, supporting the mill decision by the government. So much for the pro-environment stance by the Labor Party I suppose. Greenies would be burning their Midnight Oil CDs if they weren’t worried about the effect on the ozone layer.
Then there was the reduction in African migrant intake which was supported by Labor but they really showed that they thought differently to Liberals. They questioned the reasons behind it. That showed them… it’ll still happen because Labor support it but they made a difference.
So what am I trying to say?
I’m saying that Rudd has gone for a low-risk strategy after Latham’s spectacular failure last time, much like the difference between the Liberal Party’s high-risk election strategy in 1993 and their more conservative strategy in 1996. But what does that mean exactly?
It means that Rudd will basically run on Howard’s platform, following him every step of the way to avoid wedge politics. It’s a good strategy and it’s working so far but is it abandoning the principles of the Labor Party for the sake of electoral success? I’d argue yes.
But such a policy can work against you too. You don’t show much leadership when you follow a strategy like this which hasn’t worked against the Labor Party and it does hurt the Party faithful when they see that your party doesn’t seem to stand for anything concrete and is just shadowing the ruling regime. Brad talks big but I can’t find anything that the Labor Party is saying that’s very different from what the Liberal Party is saying. It’s all rhetoric.
The real question is whether it will work and at the moment it looks like it just might, I mean it worked for Howard in 1996 and he’s following Howard’s plan both in copying his 1996 electoral strategy and the Liberals’ current policy announcements to the letter. Makes you wonder if you’re just not better off voting Howard anyway, at least you’ll be voting for the slightly more original candidate.
So does anyone think the nickname “Diet-Howard” for Rudd will catch on? I’m willing to copyright it…




