Last week’s opening instalment of the ABC’s The Killing Season treated us to the thrills and spills of the Rudd government’s first two-and-a-half years in government. In tonight’s episode, we move into the sharper end of proceedings. Here again as a thread for discussion of what transpires. Play nice, everybody …
Killing time: part two
A thread for discussion of part two of the ABC’s documentary on the life and times of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government.
If you mean by climiate change debacle the postponing of the policy – this happened when the undermining of Rudd had already begun (the leak to Lenore being critical to the process)
adrian@148
Yes, PMs are not administrators. They have a whole Public Service for that.
PMs are required to lead, inspire and be across policy and innovate policy, together with their ministers.
hairy nose@151
He had an impossible Senate and it was quite reasonable to defer legislation in the hope of a better Senate after the 2010 election.
I don’t disagree but proper management of the deferral was sabotaged by the leak – part of a process with one aim in mind.
“Climate change debacle” which Kevin felt so deeply was the manipulation by the Chinese and the failure of any real outcome.
I’ve always seen this situation as a perfect storm of fark ups on behalf of pretty much everyone (except maybe Albo).
Greens could have supported ETS
Rudd could have gone for DD
Labour could have not knifed Rudd (pants on head retarded)
Rudd could have not white-anted after being knifed
Gillard could have not called the ETS a carbon tax
It seems like if just one of the above things had gone the other way, we would not have PM Abbott, who should have been laughed out of the room. Instead he actually got elected and is trashing the joint, still with a chance of being re-elected.
In the first two weeks we got to see what Rudd’s legacy could have been; in the last I suppose we get to see him destroy it.
Lets just hope Albo’s prophecy doesn’t turn into *three* Labor leaders killed by the 2010 putsch.
158 – #3 will be not be a loss of the magnitude as 1 and 2
I might have missed it, but did anyone see newscorp being accused of making this all up on the behest of Rupert?
Socrates at 143, previous TKS :
(Windhover
We will have to agree to disagree. I found Gillard’s words vague and evasive. She was being evasive about having been evasive to Rudd when she said “discursive”.)
Not at all. One of us might change their mind on the basis of fresh facts. Which I have done.
Don’t get me wrong. I remain a Gillardista and remain outraged by Rudd’s treachery. But I now accept, on the basis of episode 2 of the following:
1. The only reason jg challenged Rudd was because she could.
2. Her claims that she had concerns for Rudd’s capacity are cant. Her dissembling, so called deniable leadership conversation with Bourke more than a month before she deposed Rudd (of which I knew nothing before episode 2) convinces me of this.
3. Had jg truly had concerns re Rudd’s capacity her obligation to the Nation, the ALP and the leader to whom she was deputy obliged her to have a warning conversation with Rudd. Like Kerr before her, her obligation to consult, no matter the cost to her came first.
4. I had previously held the view that Government dysfunction led to backbench revolt mediated by unhappy ministers, not including jg, was the leading cause of Rudd’s removal and that it was a force beyond jg’s control. Episode 2 makes plain the push was largely poll-driven, jg was aware of the push, was its only plausible candidate so that had she resisted ambition, Rudd would have led the ALP to the next election.
I am indebted to Sarah Ferguson’s journalistic skills.
Burke
Windhover
I think next week won’t be as flattering to Rudd.
mexicanbeemer
Posted Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 10:16 pm | PERMALINK
alias
I think what this type of program shows is that there is always two sides to the story and that people, no matter who they are, will do things which might haev been justified in their mind but looks questionable when viewed from a distance.
——–there are not too sides to this story – investigative or opinion journalist would look beyond who said what to principles – you dont overthrow a party and national leader in first term – the public did not like it and we are still paying price …. the offence gillard caused is separate to her gender, that was only unfortunate manifestation … a good program on this would not sensationalise the documented events but seek a moral and government perspectives- where are the other voices that parties involved? what precdents for this type of scenario? what justification basically. Gillard and co made am itake and yet to own up
Bonza
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 7:01 pm | PERMALINK
I’ve always seen this situation as a perfect storm of fark ups on behalf of pretty much everyone (except maybe Albo).
Greens could have supported ETS
Rudd could have gone for DD
Labour could have not knifed Rudd (pants on head retarded)
Rudd could have not white-anted after being knifed
Gillard could have not called the ETS a carbon tax
It seems like if just one of the above things had gone the other way, we would not have PM Abbott, who should have been laughed out of the room. Instead he actually got elected and is trashing the joint, still with a chance of being re-elected.
——- excellent and labor still shadow boxing events of 2010 ….. ezcellent summary all to blame but let’s rank the list in moral order … 2010 first
Windhover
Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:12 pm | PERMALINK
Socrates at 143, previous TKS :
(Windhover
We will have to agree to disagree. I found Gillard’s words vague and evasive. She was being evasive about having been evasive to Rudd when she said “discursive”.)
Not at all. One of us might change their mind on the basis of fresh facts. Which I have done.
Don’t get me wrong. I remain a Gillardista and remain outraged by Rudd’s treachery. But I now accept, on the basis of episode 2 of the following:
1. The only reason jg challenged Rudd was because she could.
2. Her claims that she had concerns for Rudd’s capacity are cant. Her dissembling, so called deniable leadership conversation with Bourke more than a month before she deposed Rudd (of which I knew nothing before episode 2) convinces me of this.
3. Had jg truly had concerns re Rudd’s capacity her obligation to the Nation, the ALP and the leader to whom she was deputy obliged her to have a warning conversation with Rudd. Like Kerr before her, her obligation to consult, no matter the cost to her came first.
4. I had previously held the view that Government dysfunction led to backbench revolt mediated by unhappy ministers, not including jg, was the leading cause of Rudd’s removal and that it was a force beyond jg’s control. Episode 2 makes plain the push was largely poll-driven, jg was aware of the push, was its only plausible candidate so that had she resisted ambition, Rudd would have led the ALP to the next election.
I am indebted to Sarah Ferguson’s journalistic skills.
——ok thanks nice recp of program and your thinking
[Please everyone remember that the series has been extremely well, almost flawlessly, edited in order to sustain the theme of the title. Some of the sentences have been pruned to entice more viewers in the ‘preview’ shots.]
I know. Its hard to know how much of the editing is cutting noise from signal and how much is cutting signals to create the desired narrative without seeing all the interviews unedited.
Gillard looked like a combination of schemer and pawn and mostly bad decision maker. I’d never thought of her that way. But as mentioned above – how much of that is just down to editing. It does reinforce one narrative and makes it seem reasonable, but that is what editing is sposed to do isn’t it?
Its hard to see the interviews with Rudd and not come away thinking what a pathetic, irritating leader he would have been if I had to work with him. Even whining about not being warned and being willing to change. People like that never listen before its too late … and then its too late.
I remember seeing a blog post the day or so after Rudd got elected in 2007 – it was a picture of him and wtte of “Now don’t fuck it up.” – and it making (or reinforcing) an impression that never really left. It put into words my instincts about him. Its been mentioned but we do all see what we want or expect to (most of the time anyway.) The interviews with him just confirm my bias that he fucked it up cos he just wasn’t up to it.
Its so sad – cos its the country that’ll continue to suffer. And none of them come out looking very good. What a pointless waste of so much potential.
There was a song by the Herd (a hip hop collective) called “The King is Dead” written about Howard on the occasion of him losing government and his seat.
[Finally the king is dead. We cried “Off with his head”
Everything must change.]
Its nearly 10 years later and nothings actually changed, except for the worse. Thanks alot ALP. Did someone make this series just to rub our faces in it?
[largely poll-driven]
You mean the one poll that immediately followed the leak about the shelving of climate action that most likely originated from those who had gained from Rudd all that they required, yet Rudd’s treachery is your main line of attack?
As for you Jules’s, I don’t know what you expect from a human being and I can’t see how you could support practically anyone cast from the Earth. Consider your face rubbed, particularly with such nonsense as:
[people like that never listen before its too late … and then its too late]
What smarmy and deceitful trite this statement is.
Jules@167: Strong post.
For the more perceptive viewer, the core of Rudd’s personality has shone through in the first two episodes of TKS, notwithstanding the very plausible way in which he was consistently able to explain himself to Sarah Ferguson.
Rudd has no problem justifying himself in every situation because he is a classic example of the sort of person – familiar in any organisation – who I would describe as a “self-promoting machine”. To be really, really good at self-promotion, you need to have somewhat limited insight into yourself (to remove the hurdle of self-doubt) and below average insight into, or empathy for, the concerns of others except to the extent that these can be manipulated to help you.
People like this often make it to the top. When they get there, one of two things happen 1) they become what I would call “queen bees”, settling comfortably into what they seen as their rightful place and then slowly becoming effective leaders. Or 2) they are more like Alexander the Great and want to keep looking for fresh fields to conquer: a further “top” beyond the one they have already reached.
Unfortunately, Rudd was 2). He became PM, and immediately found the standard work of the job – making a myriad of decisions, meeting lots of visitors, keeping the Government team together and the factions all happy, etc. – mind-numbingly boring, and lacking in opportunities to get into limelight. So he tried to go global: setting up the G20, trying to lead the world on climate change at Copenhagen (leading an imperious delegation of over 100 officials!), etc., etc.
Once the CPRS had failed in the Senate, the Copenhagen Summit had not lived up to Rudd’s expectations, and (for whatever reason), the opportunity to have a DD on climate change had been lost, Rudd completely dropped the climate change issue and instead charged off to try to be the guy leading change in the Australian health system.
Meanwhile, the Government still needed to work out what were to be the next steps re climate change. Nobody could get Rudd to look at it. In the end, they put it on the agenda for a gang of four meeting, which Rudd showed up to hours late. His staff had tried to get him to focus, seemingly dragging him out into the courtyard to try to get him to make up his mind, but he was constantly distracted by passing journalists. Sure, it was Gillard who pushed for the issue to be put on the back burner, but as she said in the show, the Government had left any further action on it for so long that there wasn’t really anywhere else to go.
Jules, as you say, Rudd would have been a very difficult person for whom to work. Self-promoting machines always are unless and until they settle down. Because politics is so much about the art of compromise and taking people with you, it is rare for such people to become political leaders. So Rudd was an interesting experiment.
The strategists in the 2007 election campaign chose to harness his talent for self-promotion by running a presidential-style campaign. It worked wonderfully well. And then, as Gillard said, everyone in the party hoped he would then settle down and harness his undoubted administrative ability (he was, after all, quite a successful public servant) to become a successful PM. But he couldn’t: his ambition was unquenched, and he simply couldn’t settle down.
A sad story: clearly discernible from the first two episodes of TKS for those who are prepared to look for it.
meher
Are you a psychoanalyst or just pretending to be one?
I have never worked for Rudd and have never met him so I am very interested in how many dealings you had with the man.
[ But he couldn’t: his ambition was unquenched, and he simply couldn’t settle down.
A sad story: clearly discernible from the first two episodes of TKS for those who are prepared to look for it.]
Geez!
Killing Season: Part 2
Executive Summary:
Labor = Good at policy; terrible at politics
Coalition = Terrible at policy; good at politics
[Posted Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 11:10 am | PERMALINK
meher
Are you a psychoanalyst or just pretending to be one?]
Simply a closed mind cultist regardless of professional qualifications or lack thereof.
Yes Rudd was a ruthless arrogant sod, very few get into parliament by being nice people full of self doubt, but as the show demonstrated he was a brilliant and demanding PM (not as desirable as a Beazley or even a Smith)
WWP@172: I’m not a cultist in any way, shape or form: certainly not a Gillard cultist if that’s what you are implying.
I just don’t believe that Rudd was a very effective PM and I have good grounds for this. And it isn’t about his ruthlessness and arrogance.
The only time he demonstrated ruthlessness was when he wasn’t PM (both before he got there in 2006 and in the interregnum of 2011-13).
His arrogance was no problem at all: a prerequisite for political success.
It’s all about how he chose to lead and manage the Government when he became PM.
If people can get past all the nonsense about conspiracies of evil union hacks and so forth, one obvious way in which he didn’t spend his time well was to take his cadre of parliamentarians and cabinet ministers with him on a journey: a key role of any leader. There really can be no excuse for a PM who sweeps all before them in an election in the way Rudd did getting themselves into a position where he was dumped before the end of the first term.
The TV show has not in any way demonstrated that a bunch of factional hacks conspired over a long time to remove Rudd so that they could have their wicked way with the party. Nor that Gillard’s overwheening ambition was a significant factor. It showed a bumbling sort of ad hoc conspiracy that emerged from dissatisfaction with Rudd’s style of leadership and with some poor (but not especially poor) polling.
The coup against Rudd was incredibly stupid, but that in itself doesn’t mean that Rudd was a good PM. I’ve set out my view of his shortcomings here in great detail. They are consistent with what Ken Henry and Gillard and Burke and others said in Episode 2.
Of course the party should have stuck with him rather than dump him when they did. But that doesn’t mean he was going well in the job.
If being PM was all about performing in front of the cameras, then Rudd was great. And if Rudd had truly been prepared to let other people deal with all the minutiae while he focused on the big picture, that would have been terrific.
But Rudd wasn’t like that. He was an indecisive, somewhat erratic control freak. That sort of person is very hard to work for indeed.
But I understand that you and a few other posters on here simply can’t accept that view of Rudd. Fine by me.
meher
I always appreciate your more objective view. I’m waiting for ep. 3, which may, I hope, shed more light on character. So far the doc has tended to view Rudd through a lens coated with vaseline.
[He was an indecisive, somewhat erratic control freak. That sort of person is very hard to work for indeed]
Objectivity isn’t your strong point. Within such an adversarial environment, you’re able to state this as fact with a straight face?
Micro management isn’t Ken Henry’s criticism. Henry noted that he believed Rudd took on a lot – note he didn’t say too much. This is important. Through careful choice of words, Henry was criticising those who were unable to step up to the challenge of meaningfully contributing to managing an economy that neocons were busy destabilising.
The situation was battle stations, when too many thought it was time to push personal agendas.
Henry did criticise the way in which big policy agendas were prosecuted and lamented that Rudd wasn’t pulled up on this.
However, you have to work with what you’ve got. It is disturbing that so many had so little of value to offer. Still, overestimating the potential of a team is a valid criticism of its leader, but proportionality in this case is easily misconstrued. There also exists the possibility that Rudd got as much as was humanly possible out of his government. The people most likely to be objectively conclusive about this (assuming such a person can actually exist in reality) haven’t spoken up.
The only cure here is time and perhaps more rope.
meher baba
—— who cares what he was like, the was elected PM QED – he needed to serve the time
clinton and obama had their bad troughs but ……
tossing dice at elected first term leader is absolute disgrace …. that is what australian people people thought and look at consequences —- the killing fields program which i refuse to watch does not do proper inquiry into issues of governance involved – you dont need to know who said what to see a clear moral/governance issue … i cant believe someone like yourself (if you are ) are still depending june 2010 it beggars belief
diogenes
yes i remember how much she protested at not being trusted by rudd … so funny
yes perhaps that is as good justification for 2010 as any other, that her leader did not trust her – good as any other reason given (there are none
question: what sort of newly discipline labor party would not boycott KF programs – they all lined up like lambs to the chamber. what is one to conclude – is this a reflection on shorten’s control, or lack of foresight of danger? its a big minus for R/G – one is stupid but both. I mean I expect Gillard to take any flatform to justify the indefensible but why rudd??
Gillard supporters are awfully quiet in this thread. In a thread where the facts of the coup are all laid out the Gillard supporters go to ground. I bet they will find their voices again after the third episode about Kevin Rudd’s undermining of the finest political mind since federation.
Nicholas@178
Yes, I too have been surprised that the “Cult of the Immaculate Julia” has been largely absent. Or were they lurking in shame and stunned silence?
I have no idea what the third episode will bring, but I doubt there will be much joy in it for the cultists.
Rudd in his second term made some very dumb (desperate?) decisions and since these are well known I doubt there will be much further disappointment for his supporters.
Nicholas
Posted Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:04 pm | PERMALINK
Gillard supporters are awfully quiet in this thread. In a thread where the facts of the coup are all laid out the Gillard supporters go to ground. I bet they will find their voices again after the third episode about Kevin Rudd’s undermining of the finest political mind since federation.
———————–ha ha who is this JG anon?
finest mind he decides June 2010 wise! justifiable?
ha
very poor on education arts and several other areas
a good deputy
no-one has answered why any labor member a) agreed t go on this program b) was allowed by party to go on the program? what happened to party discipline?? trying to distance from events of 2010? new stability under shorten???
anything that makes abbott rejoice is not good idea
when will an investigative program conclude that what gillard did was reprehensible in terms of accepted international practice to a first term leader
cheers
TBA no Gillard has no shame … look at her now extolling young women to get ahead
Hey there Radguy – we’re all getting our faces rubbed in it every day with this government that thinks a conviction by a court is “toothless”. We don’t need this tv show to gouge open old wounds and rub infectious bio waste in them.
[As for you Jules’s, I don’t know what you expect from a human being and I can’t see how you could support practically anyone cast from the Earth.]
I expect alot more than we ever saw from Rudd out of people in leadership positions.
I know there are people here who worked with him who may have a different opinion, I’m not disputing that. I can only go by what I saw or heard via the media.
He dumped Garrett in it wrt to the home insulation debacle, (and it wasn’t really a debacle either.) A strong leader who cared about their team would have handled that differently and come out looking a lot better. You don’t dump your subordinates in it the way Rudd did to Garrett. If you don’t understand that you don’t get what leading a team is all about.
[However, you have to work with what you’ve got. It is disturbing that so many had so little of value to offer. Still, overestimating the potential of a team is a valid criticism of its leader, but proportionality in this case is easily misconstrued.]
Considering the job they did in government post 2010 I don’t see how you can say they had so little of value to offer. Despite its hopelessness at selling a message, Gillard’s government actually did things. A Carbon price, Disability Insurance, they even looked like doing something meaningful about access to dentistry. They certainly weren’t perfect but they had many achievements.
Good leaders inspire people to go beyond what they thought were their limits. Good leaders bring the best out of people, give them confidence in themselves and all the while have the best interests of their team as an overriding thing. As meher said they take people with them. The worst thing a leader can do is blame their team. Actually blaming your team proves it wasn’t their fault it was yours.
Even Tony Abbott takes people on a journey. It may be to the gates of hell, but he’s taking people with him. I’m no shrink but I trust my ability to judge character, even via media, and I wouldn’t follow Rudd in traffic.
Basically my opinion of Rudd hasn’t changed but my opinion of his removal has. It comes across as half arsed and driven by personal ambition or dislike. I pretty much agree with everything meher said @ 173, except that perhaps while it was stupid maybe it was also understandable. If you are part of a team there is nothing worse than bad leadership.
If you think our criticism is without basis type “Kevin Rudd was an inspiring leader” (with quotation marks) into a search engine and see how many results you get. I just did it twice using “was an inspiring leader” and “is an inspiring leader”. Guess how many results I got.
So we found out yesterday that Gillard was taking his Newspoll interpretation advice from Dennis Shannahan; who always has the best interests of the ALP at heart doesn’t he.
[
If you think our criticism is without basis type “Kevin Rudd was an inspiring leader” (with quotation marks) into a search engine and see how many results you get. I just did it twice using “was an inspiring leader” and “is an inspiring leader”. Guess how many results I got.
]
Well, I did the same with “Julia Gillard was an inspiring leader” (with quotation marks) in Google and got this:
[
No results found for “Julia Gillard was an inspiring leader”
]
Not sure your suggestion proves much either way.
Try swapping “inspiring” for “great” and see what you get. Furthermore what has Gillard got to do with it anyway?
Not everything is KR bad JG good (or vice versa). That is literally one dimensional thinking.
And it should be painfully obvious to everyone that leadership ambitions and half arsed plots don’t succeed without some (rather large I’d think) degree of dissatisfaction with the current leadership. If someone else was there instead of Gillard the same thing would probably have happened.
[
Try swapping “inspiring” for “great” and see what you get. Furthermore what has Gillard got to do with it anyway?
]
Well, “Kevin Rudd was a great leader” returned zero results. “Julia Gillard was a great leader” returned three results. Proving my point that trying to use search engine results to somehow show Kevin Rudd was a dud leader is stupid. Just as doing it to prove Gillard was a dud leader would be stupid. Thanks for helping to prove my point.
I don’t need a search engine to prove that Rudd was a dud leader. If he was any good he wouldn’t have lost the job.
Its just rubbing the point in … I would say needlessly but obviously someone needed it.
[
I don’t need a search engine to prove that Rudd was a dud leader. If he was any good he wouldn’t have lost the job.
]
lol, well, we could say the same about another recent leader of the ALP. Personally, I was glad to see the back of both Rudd and Gillard by the end of it all. What a waste of talent and potential those six years were.
Cough.
[Kevin Rudd says it’s “entirely possible” he leaked an account of a meeting with Julia Gillard which damaged her prime ministership from its start.]
[Mr Rudd says it’s “entirely possible” he told Nine Network journalist Laurie Oakes, among other reporters, about the June 2010 meeting in which he offered to stand aside for his deputy if Labor’s stocks did not improve.]
[…Ms Gillard said it was made clear to her that the only way to stop the leaks was to offer Mr Rudd the post-election job of foreign minister, which she did.
The leaks stopped and Mr Rudd was given the role when Labor formed minority government.]
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/06/23/00/14/rudd-admits-to-damaging-leak#q55pxgDT5ba5BX19.99
btw, this is a drive by shooting. I’m not interested in this thread, but am just respecting William’s wish that R/G/R comments be restricted to here.
Looking forward to tonight’s finale. Wonder if we’ll get any more on the leaks than what’s been released so far today.
[
Kevin Rudd has all but confirmed he was behind a damaging leak that revealed a deal to hand over the leadership to Julia Gillard, proposed the night before she launched the infamous 2010 coup.
Almost five years to the day since Ms Gillard dethroned Mr Rudd, the revelation is detailed in ABC’s The Killing Season, which features the two key Labor protagonists sifting through their rise and fall over six years in government.
Ms Gillard also discloses that Labor’s current leader, Bill Shorten, warned her he had switched his vote — and with it several others — to Mr Rudd about a fortnight before she was ousted in the final leadership showdown in 2013.
]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/kevin-rudd-all-but-confirms-he-was-behind-julia-gillard-leak/6564862
Radguy at 168:
[largely poll-driven
You mean the one poll that immediately followed the leak about the shelving of climate action that most likely originated from those who had gained from Rudd all that they required, yet Rudd’s treachery is your main line of attack?]
As I used the phrase “largely poll-driven” I assume that your post is intended as a response. I make the following comments.
1. No, my reference to “largely poll-driven” was a reference to a line of polls referred to in ep 2 and ending in the in-house ALP poll of marginals that suggested an electoral wipe-out.
2. Rudd’s treachery is not “my main line of attack”. It is a given that Rudd was treacherous but largely irrelevant to the point of my post, the point of which admits the treachery and dissembling of Gillard.
3. By your failure to follow the point of my post and your non sequitur I assume you are still too emotionally fragile over the dumping of Rudd PM to think clearly about these matters. Perhaps episode 3 will enable you to see that whatever Gillard’s misconduct, Rudd’s treachery was a childish emotional response to the situation he found himself in. He chose to join forces with those who have wished to wreck the joint.
It may be Rudd’s inability to suck it up finds more favour with you than me but if you can’t see how destructive his leaking was of every political policy he purported to stand for (i.e. real action on climate change, etc) then we are starting from diametrically opposed points of view.
[lol, well, we could say the same about another recent leader of the ALP. Personally, I was glad to see the back of both Rudd and Gillard by the end of it all. What a waste of talent and potential those six years were.]
Yeah … fair point.
Although the whole thing about saving the furniture makes mewonder if Gillards loss is just down to her ability to lead. A short period of Rudd in the hope you’ll save your own seat following his comprehensive rejection on many occasions does make me wonder if its the same thing. Although obviously if she had the real loyalty of her entire team it never would have happened.
Honestly I think Gillard did ok. She managed to make a fairly wide ranging minority/coalition government work when no one thought she would. i couldn’t see Rudd pulling that off or Abbott for that matter. But she didn’t seem like an inspirational leader to me either. I think she should have supported Wilke and gone after the pokies – that needed to be done and would have shown real leadership.
I think she did all right because frankly she must have got something right to hold that government together and make it work most of the time. Especially given the climate of hate she was dealing with. With a reasonable media focus on issues of government instead of that stupid hysteria she may have won the election in 2013.
I don’t think those years were totally wasted … Rudd’s government during the GFC was certainly good for the country and given the effort Abbott’s govt has put in to undoing so much of what they both tried to achieve there was good stuff done. It seems the only thing Abbott and co had on their agenda was undermining what the ALP did over those years.
[
Honestly I think Gillard did ok. She managed to make a fairly wide ranging minority/coalition government work when no one thought she would. i couldn’t see Rudd pulling that off or Abbott for that matter. But she didn’t seem like an inspirational leader to me either. I think she should have supported Wilke and gone after the pokies – that needed to be done and would have shown real leadership.
I think she did all right because frankly she must have got something right to hold that government together and make it work most of the time. Especially given the climate of hate she was dealing with. With a reasonable media focus on issues of government instead of that stupid hysteria she may have won the election in 2013.
I don’t think those years were totally wasted … Rudd’s government during the GFC was certainly good for the country and given the effort Abbott’s govt has put in to undoing so much of what they both tried to achieve there was good stuff done. It seems the only thing Abbott and co had on their agenda was undermining what the ALP did over those years.
]
Agree completely jules. Fair point about the GFC. As the first episode of The Killing Season showed, Labor were exemplary in keeping Australia out of a recession and people in jobs. So yes, not a total waste.