Kevin Rudd went on Insiders this morning and did quite well I thought. The only time he looked in any trouble was when Barrie Cassidy asked him why he has misjudged how hard it would be to get things done. Rudd hadn’t expected that question. Clearly he had hoped to be able to make the otherwise sensible argument that things often take longer than you might first expect. Cassidy came back with the question was that naivity or inexperience that lead to that misjudgment? Good question; afterall Rudd had public service experience in the Goss government and should have had some idea about these sorts of practicalities.
There seems to be some confusion as to what Rudd promised on hospitals. In the interview he said he supports local control and he had only promised national funding. This is what he said at the ALP campaign launch in 2007.
On hospitals, we have put forward a national plan to end the buck-passing between Canberra and the States. I have a long-term plan to fix our nation’s hospitals. I will be responsible for implementing my plan, and I state this with absolute clarity: the buck will stop with me.
Mr Howard, by contrast, has put forward no new plan. He prefers to continue buck-passing to the States, instead of taking responsibility for fixing the system. Australians are fed up with this tired, old game. Australians want a long term solution for our hospitals. They are sick and tired of short term excuses for not fixing our hospitals.
• We will deliver 2,000 extra aged care beds to take the pressure off acute hospital beds.
• GP SuperClinics around Australia to take the pressure of accident and emergency departments.
• A national fund to eliminate elective surgery waiting lists beyond clinically acceptable times.
• A massive national investment in the war against cancer.
• And 10 years after Mr Howard abolished it, we will re-establish a Commonwealth Public Dental Program.
What he said today is consistent with the ALP campaign launch – but it is not consistent with this ALP sound bite.
If States don’t cooperate I’ll seek a mandate for the Commonwealth to take over delivery of health care services.
So the confusion might be understandable.
Update: The document I’m quoting seems to have been taken down, here is the google cache.
Cassidy is a first class interviewer. It’s a classic Cassidy question, out of left field and interesting. He asks sensible questions. If he pursues it for a while and they keep evading, eventually he shrugs and moves on to something else. He’s piercing, but he’s not a bulldog.
I noticed when he interviewed Abbott about climate change a few weeks ago, he was asking “why do anything about climate change at all, if the rest of the world doesn’t act?”
People ask Rudd that, and Wong, but not Abbott. I watched that and thought, wow, that’s fair enough. He’s asking Abbott to justify his policy on its own merits, independent of the political context. Nice. (btw Abbott handled the question okay)
daddy dave
28 Feb 10 at 10:54 am
“If States don’t cooperate I’ll seek a mandate for the Commonwealth to take over delivery of health care services.”
There is no confusion, he lied through his teeth. Just as he lied to the faces of the young Q&A audience that ripped him to shreds. It is looking increasingly likely that we will be able to limit this corrupt, lying, incompetent government to a single term of damage.
elhombre
28 Feb 10 at 11:11 am
My observations:
* Rudd was still pretty boring;
* he may know he’s got to improve his communication skills, but he clearly still hasn’t got complete control over the irritating rhetorical tics like “and you know what Barry?”
* someone else here recently noted Rudd’s blinking during, I think, the 7.30 Report interview (so no criticism of me for being obsessed with eyes, thank you very much,) but now I do find it hard to avoid noticing how much he blinks at the start of interviews lately. It settles down during the interviews, but at the start…
* of the topics covered, he actually sounds most confident on the ETS, despite the fact that he won’t be drawn on whether it will be used for a double dissolution.
steve from brisbane
28 Feb 10 at 11:18 am
Oh, and I also meant to add that, as I observed here of the 7.30 Report, this taking on of personal responsibility for all of the government’s failings (to my mind) runs the distinct risk of coming across as vanity, especially for someone with a reputation as a control freak like Kevin. I would have thought it would sound more humble to talk like this “we as a government have failed to …blah blah”
steve from brisbane
28 Feb 10 at 11:24 am
Steve
It also gives the appearance that Rudd is either incredibly authoritarian and/or he does not trust the competence of his ministers.
Peter Patton
28 Feb 10 at 11:46 am
Rudd has never implemented anything successfully. Like many “social democrats” he thinks that government can allocate resources more efficiently than the private sector. He hasn’t learned from history. A more insightful and reflective government/PM would realise the limitations of government and wouldn’t have designed a program such as the insulation scheme. He seems to think that he knows better than the people of Australia and we should give him more control over our lives and he – the benevolent dictator – will improve our lives. Such conceit, such bombast.
This proves once again why a stimulus based on tax cuts would have been superior to the package designed by the Government.
And we might like to check this against the stated objectives of the insulation program – to reduce energy use. Not only will it have failed on that side (energy use will increase), but it has basically put another industry permanently on the government teat and it has cost a huge amount of money. Fail on every count.
Samuel J
28 Feb 10 at 11:54 am
There is no confusion, he lied through his teeth.
.
Oh nonsense. He said “I am an economic conservative committed to budget surpluses…
.
Um.
Adrien
28 Feb 10 at 12:04 pm
“I have a plan for Australia’s future.”
LOL.
C.L.
28 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
I disagree, I think Rudd performed poorly. He may have appeared to have performed better better his previous interviews were atrocious. the clown has a crystal jaw.
The cliches were out in fall force and the irritating questions to himself are just intolerable these days.
Have we performed poorly? Yes we have.
Can we do better? Yes we can.
Here’s an idea, why doesn’t the little clown interview himself from now on.
Cassidy soft peddled this interview for a number of reasons. Cassidy’s labor and knows that he’d lose Rudd if he gave him a hard time.
What’s more interesting is that the recent poll they discussed shows the two parties at 50/50 on a two party preferred while Abbott hits 43% approval.
Rudd’s in trouble.
JC
28 Feb 10 at 12:13 pm
oops…….because his previous…
JC
28 Feb 10 at 12:14 pm
I love how Rudd has perfected the Obama Apology:
1. There’s no sugar-coating it. I take full responsibility.
2. But, for the record, it wasn’t my fault. It was the GFC’s/Garrett’s/a staffer’s/a passing bunyip’s fault.
3. There’s no sugar-coating it. I take full responsibility.
‘Am I dickhead? Yes I am. I make no apology for that.’
C.L.
28 Feb 10 at 12:18 pm
yea… the freaking.. “there’s no sugar coating it” followed by a question.
It puts me off my lunch/breakfast.
Who the fuck talks like that?
JC
28 Feb 10 at 12:22 pm
Cassidy soft peddled this interview for a number of reasons. Cassidy’s labor and knows that he’d lose Rudd if he gave him a hard time.
.
I disagree.
I don’t think he’s pro-Labor particularly.
Also, Cassidy doesn’t do “bulldog” style. I get the impression he’s a very easy-going person in life, and that translates to the way he interviews. He does the “now look mate, just between you and me, what the fuck is going on?” style. He’s never rude to interviewees. He doesn’t harangue them. If they choose to dissemble, he asks enough questions to make it obvious to anyone with a brain that they’re dissembling, then he moves on.
daddy dave
28 Feb 10 at 12:26 pm
The other thing that I liked was that Cassidy didn’t use half the time talking about why Rudd hadn’t come on for so long.
Sinclair Davidson
28 Feb 10 at 12:28 pm
I don’t think he’s pro-Labor particularly.
Is that why the show made history this year when they had for the first time two conservatives to one leftwing nutball?
The possible reason being that the second leftwinger wasn’t able to make it and it was an emergency fill in.
Also, Cassidy doesn’t do “bulldog” style.
You don’t have to. In fact a real hard ball interviewer should sound very engaging and doesn’t make the question or the way it’s asked the issue. The answer is the focus.
Ever seen Ted Koppel interview?
JC
28 Feb 10 at 12:33 pm
Rudd is on a media blitz. No doubt because Abbott is having a good run. So we can expect Rudd to fly around the country for photops wherever there is a bulldozer.
All the usual political game, I guess, but I’d rather he spent more time at his desk doing the job he is paid for. They have been tripped already by failure to pay attention to detail and I would have thought the best response is to do a bit of reading and ask a few questions to see what else is slipping through.
ken n
28 Feb 10 at 12:48 pm
It may not work, Ken. If he’s on the nose, getting into people’s faces like he is may make things worse for him. It depends where he is in terms of the momentum of public opinion.
My feeling is that he’s making it worse for himself as people are really starting to dislike him and the more the hear of that cliche ridden, self-questioning bullshit he peppers his language with the more he’s disliked.
Politics is all about riding the big momentum wave. He’s off his board now and getting thrown into the rocks. You can ride the big mo into oblivion too.
JC
28 Feb 10 at 12:54 pm
Samuel J: “Like many “social democrats” he thinks that government can allocate resources more efficiently than the private sector. He hasn’t learned from history.”
So Abbott & his anti-market response to climate change is a social democrat? and what about that classic centralist John Howard ??
Island View
28 Feb 10 at 12:58 pm
JC says:
“Here’s an idea, why doesn’t the little clown interview himself from now on.”
Well yes; that could work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHPij5Q9geQ
Seriously though, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why anyone would still consider voting for this mob.
I was flabbergasted when in one of the earlier discussion at this site “Peter Patton”, who generally seems to come through as a sensible person, stated that he’d not only voted for Rudd (despite the always obvious fact the guy stands for nothing and is as fake as anyone can get), but would do still it again as the government has not “really stuffed up anything in a major way yet…” (or words to that effect.
Personally I’ve been around for a few years now and while I admit I tend to mostly vote Liberal, mainly thanks to the fact there is no viable libertarian party in this country just yet, it truly beats me how anyone with a modicum of intelligence can say this government has not done anything too bad.
I mean if one looks at the massive waste of public funds and the bungling of pretty much anything they’ve touched, what more will it take to vote against them? Perhaps they need to look at borrowing some cash from the Middle East, before some will consider switching?
Rudd was a liability in Queensland when he was Goss’ top public servant; Queenslanders are still living with the outcomes of his tenure in that job.
He hasn’t changed and when you look at the outright corruption of the Qld & NSW ALP State governments, and where that has led those two States’ economies, I fear that another term of federal Labor has the potential to set the country into the same league as some of the European basket cases.
In fact, some of the shenanigans of especially NSW Labor very much remind me of how politics is done in Italy or Greece.
Is that what we truly want for Australia?
John Bayley
28 Feb 10 at 1:33 pm
I thought that linking his support for an ETS to John Howard was bizarre.
“KEVIN RUDD: You know something, Barrie, all the advice we’ve received and Mr Howard’s Government received, it is the most effective, least costly way of dealing with climate change.
I mean, if there was some magic bullet out there which was cost free and pain free to act on bringing down global greenhouse gas emissions, I’m sure John Howard and Kevin Rudd would have found it a long time ago.”
And then he invokes JH again a couple of questions later.
“KEVIN RUDD: Barrie, let me restate what I’ve always said, I believe governments are elected to serve their full term. John Howard and I are on a unity ticket on that,”
It might not be the smartest of moves to remind voters of John Howard’s style of Government after two and a half years of Labor froth and spin.
The comparison is not flattering to Rudd.
And if Rudd could explain how an Australian ETS will measurably affect GLOBAL greenhouse emissions, let alone atmospheric GHG concentrations, I’d very much like to hear it.
Paul Williams
28 Feb 10 at 1:33 pm
“Climate change” hysteric Phil at Larvatus Prodeo has denounces ABC Drum editor Jonathan Green for saying that he’ll feature articles from non-warmenists next week.
Ya gotta love that lefty phrase: “false balance.”
Phil thinks the “science is settled.”!
C.L.
28 Feb 10 at 1:42 pm
JC
I think Rudd’s problem is that he is so the exact opposite of Bob Hawke. When Hawkey was elected every Australian knew every inch of him – literally!
All his warts – aggressive trade unionist, womanizer, drunk, foul-mouthed, speedoes wearing, we had become acclimatized to over his previous VERY public life.
OTOH, Rudd got elected largely because not only did he promise to get rid of those parts of ‘Howardism’ the electorate did not like (not like (WorkChoices), but he also promised not to threaten or upset the large parts of ‘Howardism’ the electorate still did like – tough stand against political correctness and far-left ‘culture/history warriors,’ economic conservatism, border security, and so on.
But Rudd was a true clean-skin compared to both Hawke and Howard when they were elected PM. This meant the electorate largely gave Rudd the benefit of the doubt. That ‘doubt’ of course was “who actually is this Kevin Rudd?” Now that the electorate is slowly putting the pieces together, they do not like what they see. Whereas, we all had to 10-20 years to acclimatize ourselves to, accept, and resign ourselves to Hawke/Howard, – and they too had that time to adapt to changing mores – Rudd does not have that luxury. He is being hit with the double-whammy of unpopular policy decisions and the revelation of his own character as being not the type we would ever elect PM!
Peter Patton
28 Feb 10 at 1:44 pm
@CL – not as bad as some of the comments:
So – not only are skeptics now akin to holocaust-deniers, apparently they’re on par with war-mongering, people-smuggling, child molesting, nazi thugs.
Because merely “not being convinced” of something is the same as all the above to these leftoids.
Fleeced
28 Feb 10 at 2:43 pm
I’m also tired of the warm-earthers painting themselves as the “rational scientific” side of the debate, when many of them display an inherent fear of technological progress (anti-GM, anti-nuclear, anti-western medicine, anti-vaxxers, etc).
Most of these people are anti-science on just about any topic – luddites for the most part – and their adherence to AGW hypothesis has more to do with fear of human progress, and a general self-loathing, than scientific enlightenment.
Fleeced
28 Feb 10 at 2:49 pm
Very true, Fleeced. I thought the phenomenon reached a kind of apogee in the 2008 presidential campaign when Obama said the question of when life begins (it begins at conception) was beyond his pay grade.
C.L.
28 Feb 10 at 2:56 pm
Fleeced
I am persuaded by the most important parts of the AGW thesis. Where I become more “skeptical” is when the thesis leaves the past and present, and moves into the future, via computer simulations.
I become even more skeptical when the AGW science is used as a basis for political solutions for mitigation. I think a lot of the skepticism at this level of the debate is that it is not led by Nobel Physicists, great scientists devoted to climatology, top mathematicians/statisticians/computer scientists expert in modeling non-linear/complex systems. It is no loger about this thing they call “The Science.”
No, the policy debate is led by people like Clive Hamilton, George Monbiot, and their mini-mes, and a vanguard of irritating Far-Leftists, rewarming their frameworks and shibboleths from pre-1989 days. The bloggers linked to above are proving to be the infantrypersons, but the ideological generals are that old Socialist Left, and their stenographers are the arts/social sciences hegemony in the schools, universities, and bureaucracies.
Unlike previous great policy tussles, this one has the Internet open to all, so the leadership presumed by the Old Left Warriors is the for the first time being challenged by millions of keyboards around the globe, and growing.
Peter Patton
28 Feb 10 at 2:58 pm
That’s it, Fleeced,you’ve talked me into becoming a sceptic again. I found myself going into periods of self loathing as a result of the company I was keeping on the warming side. I’m now a fully fledged denialist.
Where do I get my uniform and badge?
JC
28 Feb 10 at 3:31 pm
If only all conversions were that easy.
entropy
28 Feb 10 at 3:46 pm
Wow. Labor pulled that page today after you linked to it? If so, that’s some seriously despicable shit.
Abu Chowdah
28 Feb 10 at 3:48 pm
It’s amazing Abu. They’re frightened stiff which makes me think their internal polling is showing some really serious damage and they have “web guards” on 24/7 closely watching to see what people are saying.
If so and you’re reading this:
start looking for a job in the union movement, dude, because you”re basically out the door, unless there’s a miracle. Lol.
JC
28 Feb 10 at 3:59 pm
Hehe – of course, I wasn’t saying that all AGW-believers are self-loathing luddites – just that many are, and that these ones are usually the most vocal in labeling opposition as anti-scientific oddballs.
For the record, my own skepticism is based more around the proposed solutions than whether or not warming is happening.
I’m also not convinced warming is that a bad thing, either. It’s pretty clear there’s some bias in projections there – if an animal is cute and cuddly, it’s claimed that warming will hurt it, but if it’s not (eg, jellyfish), it’s claimed there’ll be a population explosion. Slugs, snails and puppy dog tails – that’s what global warming is made of (apparently).
Fleeced
28 Feb 10 at 4:11 pm
Fleeced:
With very few exceptions nearly all are luddites though.
Some of these morons have this romantic idea that sticking up a bunch of plastic panels with a magnifying glass in a desert and putting up a stupid propeller on a post is going to give us all the power we need while the children will be singing nursery rhythms in the street and everyone will be growing veggies in the back garden, rivers will flow with Belgian chocolate and everyone lives in a happy little (Chives) Hamiltonian community pitching in and baking our bread each day.
This is the bullshit they really believe in. They’re nuts.
JC
28 Feb 10 at 4:22 pm
Ah but JC we’ll be happier because most of the 20th century was a mistake. Especially the bit about plasma TV sets.
ken n
28 Feb 10 at 4:45 pm
Fleeced
I’m also not convinced warming is that a bad thing, either.
BINGO! This part of the process is very oddly rarely give oxygen. I suppose it shifts the discursive territory too much towards “adaptation” and we all know that adaptationists follow Bjorn Lomborg, and are thus all reactionary capitalist Little Eichmann’s, enemies of the revolutionary Xanadu!
Peter Patton
28 Feb 10 at 6:21 pm
Ah, Lomborg… it’s funny, because in The Skeptical Environmentalist, he went out of his way to say he was not a “demonic little free-market individualist”.
I laughed when I read that, and actually considered printing badges/stickers to declare that I
AM a demonic little free-market individualist!
Fleeced
28 Feb 10 at 11:33 pm
send me one of those badges if you ever get’em made, Fleeced.
Lomborg sends the bedwetters crazy. The guy is really top flight quality.
JC
28 Feb 10 at 11:43 pm
I can see that this is a very cosy little right-thinking club but isn’t anyone going to respond to my earlier post – a touché at least would be nice
Island View
1 Mar 10 at 12:02 am
You mean this? We’ve been through that before.
So Abbott & his anti-market response to climate change is a social democrat? and what about that classic centralist John Howard ??
Yea, but it’s going to cost less than Rudd’s make believe market/anti market policy. Everyone knows Abbott doesn’t believe any of it, so there’s little chance he’ll enact most of that stuff anyway thereby causing less economic damage.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 12:11 am
I can see that this is a very cosy little right-thinking club but isn’t anyone going to respond to my earlier post – a touché at least would be nice
Sure, I’ve got all year.
So Abbott & his anti-market response to climate change is a social democrat? and what about that classic centralist John Howard ??
Let’s start here: Abbott’s response isn’t anti-market because the ETS isn’t a real market. It’s an artificial market guaranteed to destroy wealth.
Howard isn’t/never was a libertarian in the sense of guaranteeing individual rights, although he was somewhat pro-market. However, really he was/is nothing more than a big-government conservative. Kind of embarrassing that he’s our second best prime minister ever, eh?
Michael Sutcliffe
1 Mar 10 at 12:16 am
Michael:
I think Abbott’s hidden agenda is to soften the electorate towards nuke anyway. I don’t think he’ll do that in the first term if he wins. I think he’ll “GST it” and talk about it with the public, making it policy into a second term if he wins the next election as looks more and more likely.
The other proposal is just crap, to show he has a policy. The real meat will be nuke which of course Labor can’t run with as they’re appealing the the anti-science, bed-wetter Luddite voting block.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 12:21 am
JC, that works for me. Let’s hope it happens.
What’s the bet we’ll have nukes within the decade?
Michael Sutcliffe
1 Mar 10 at 12:36 am
Doubtful… I wish it were true, but it takes a while to build these things, and will need the states on board. By 2030, perhaps – but 2020? Too soon.
Fleeced
1 Mar 10 at 12:51 am
Yea, I’d say 2025- 2030. It’s not worth rushing either. As economies of scale come in these plants will collapse in price.
An American firm’s quote came in 30% higher than the Korean’s for two plants in the middle east with the Korean’s using Westinghouse technology.
Price will eventually fall precipitously, sop the longer we wait the better it would be.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 1:12 am
Island, no one felt motivated or compelled to respond to your observation because it was so lame. Thanks to Michael for donating 10 seconds he’ll never get back in addressing your contribution.
Abu Chowdah
1 Mar 10 at 7:58 am
JC,
As Garrett found with ceiling insulation, though, once a tidal wave of money hits the industry either prices go up or quality goes down. By delaying we could be taking a risk as well.
Andrew Reynolds
1 Mar 10 at 12:26 pm
Explain, Andrew? What risk do we impose on ourselves with delays?
JC
1 Mar 10 at 12:31 pm
Rudd has been enormously popular as a PM. The danger for him going into the next election has been that he ends up looking like a sure thing and his MPs and his supporters get complacent. Given the fact that there is bad news brewing I figure that his tactic is to cop it sweet now and take a hit in the polls now rather than latter so he can play the under dog in the run up to the election. At this stage I’m tipping that it will work and Rudd will win. However he can’t afford much more in the way of negative revelations closer to the election. So if there is any more dirty laundry he should be getting it out in the open now. The waste in the School building program is a ticking bomb politically and if it stays on a slow burn and explodes closer to the election he is in trouble. It all depends on how bad the waste has been and when the story gets legs.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
1 Mar 10 at 12:53 pm
I thought Casssidy was good and Rudd his usual annoying self, namely, a cliche machine and an instinctive liar. Nicely nailed on the double disolution dodge.
I think the blame acceptance tactic does take the heat out of questions.
School building waste could be a big issue if widespread.
Pedro
1 Mar 10 at 6:46 pm
I can see that this is a very cosy little right-thinking club but isn’t anyone going to respond to my earlier post – a touché at least would be nice
.
*sigh* okay Island view, at least as trolls go, you don’t spam the fuck out of every thread. You said:
.
So Abbott & his anti-market response to climate change is a social democrat? and what about that classic centralist John Howard ??
.
Abbott’s response to climate change is small and attempts to incentivise industry to clean up the “low hanging fruit”. Labor might want to call it anti-market but that’s just an attempt at wedge politics, and in this case it doesn’t work, because it’s incorrect.
.
Your point about John Howard escapes me. I think your larger point is to tease us because Abbott and Howard have both advocated climate change mitigation, which must go against the grain for anti-interventionist climate sceptics. Am I close?
daddy dave
1 Mar 10 at 9:22 pm