Prime Minister Howard has a mandate for everything - the knives are out for Latham - 'Bomber' Beazley positioned to grab Labor leadership again - the evangelist right hold the body politic by the balls - human rights is off the agenda - free speech is in imminent danger of termination. George W Bush will be a very proud President.
Australia was the first member country of the 'Coalition of the Willing' to go to the polls. This election was not fought on lofty ideals, decency or even an indicator of support for Bush this was a carefully controlled domestic 'what's in it for me?' election. It took just ninety minutes from the time the first votes were counted for John Howard to have it in the bag. The House of Representatives, the Senate, the lot. Voting is compulsary in Australia. Even fools must vote or cop a fine.
John Howard has won a four elections with a big white lie. He has convinced voters whose opinions, are formed by shockjocks and whose significant other is often a slot machine, that he thinks they are smart. Of course they believe him. He is the only person who has never told them they are idiots. He gives them an issue, pushes a simple line though advertising and unable to distinguish between party political spin and news they parrot the line with knowing gravitas throughout their community. Flattery has got John Howard a mandate for everything and now no one who disagrees with the government will be safe.
The Howard Government now has the absolute mandate to lock children up for life, to destroy and deport refugees, embark on pre-emptive military adventures, dismember Medicare, deny pensions, muzzle free speech, destroy the Australian Broadcasting Commission and give full control of the media to propagandists, end reconciliation and hope to Indigenous Australians, change work practices so workers lose all benefits and toil in constant fear of dismissal and all this countries assets will be handed to the highest bidder.
Howard's victory speech was nothing short of presidential. "This is a proud nation, a confident nation, a cohesive nation, a united nation, a nation which can achieve anything it wants if it sets its mind to it. An no Australian should ever shrink from a passionate belief in the ability and the capacity of this nation not only to provide a wonderful homeland for our 20 million, not only to be a partner with our friends in our own region but to be a beacon of democracy, of tolerance, of hope and of achievement all around the world." And to those involved with human rights it was totally bogus.
And to long term political observers Howard's beacon seemed a cynical appropriation of the light on the hill which was central to the most famous speech in Labor history - "I try to think of the Labor movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody's pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective - the light on the hill - which we aim to reach by working the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand." Ben Chifley 1949.
What was the response to Howard's win from the opposition? The Labor strategists claim they ran a good campaign just has they have after every Howard win. Well they didn't. Again they ran on the campaign that Howard set and again they failed. It was a train wreck. Why? Because they planted the seeds of their own destruction immediately after the last election.
I watched as Labor Leader Mark Latham conceded the 2004 Australian Federal Election. He looked pale and diminished under the television lights standing behind a lectern clearly designed for a new prime minister the backdrop the Southern Cross on a blue background above it the slogan "Opportunity for All." This slogan more than anything else explains the appalling loss that Labor suffered in this election. It was a very selective ALL and the Labor strategists were again at fault as they were in 2001.
"What's that big bump under the campaign carpet?" - "Ssssh! Its our humanity, stupid."
Iraq, WMDs civilian or allied deaths had no place in the Australian election. Howard was immediately congratulated by President George W Bush who regards Howard, the first leader of the Coalition of the Willing to face the electorate, as a Man of Steel. Of course Bush was pleased the world was watching and Howard won. But in the Australian Election campaign Iraq hardly rated a mention from Howard or Latham.
Couldn't the Labor number crunchers add up? Hadn't they seen the rallies? Didn't they realise the biggest human rights movement in the history of Australia is marching now on the Internet demanding peace and compassion? The Coalition couldn't have laid a glove on Labor if Latham had been allowed to talk about refugees, Australia's off-shore prisoners, detention in Australia and Guantanamo Bay. If he had told the full story about little children behind razor wire every parent and every grandparent would have understood that a government capable of doing such things to other people's children could easily endanger their own.
Indigenous Australians had no place in the Australian election. Acknowledging the original owners of this country in every speech was not enough. Labor should have honestly represented Indigenous Australians against John Howard who will not even utter the word SORRY. But when strategists gave Latham the extraordinary line 'No one over 75 will have to pay for health care' they ignored the fact that unlike their more fortunate countrymen and women the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians is so outrageously low that few of them will ever reach 75.
2001 was Border Protection v Me Too it was won by Howard on xenophobia. 2004 was Money money v Me Too. And it was won by John Howard on the economy.
Both sides claimed to represent family values. What did they mean by FAMILY? In Australia today that word can hurt a lot of people. Only the fortunate appear to have a happy FAMILY. For others the word FAMILY causes pain because it means separation, alienation, loss, abuse, hunger, rejection, poverty, anger, and fear. It can also create jealousy because it seems that only the very privileged can aspire to a happy or lasting family life.
And the word FAMILY raises disturbing comparisons and shows gross insensitivity. When consideration is given to the way refugee families are being treated and how the families of Indigenous Australians have been and are being treated. It is evident very few of the strategists are sensitive to that FAMILY connection.
No wonder people were saying they can't tell the difference between the major parties. Mediocrity is a great leveller.
This group of Labor strategists should go. For a fourth time Labors members and supporters have been let down by strategists using exactly the same techniques used to achieve failure on each of those occasions. Australia under Hawke had arguably the best health care system in the world under the Hawke/Keating Labor Government. The strategists based the campaign around Medicare Gold but did not allow Latham to attack Howard effectively on his record, which was obscured by the fact that most people in the community who needed it had been suddenly able to access bulk-billing.
Now Howard has got back what will happen? Aged Australians, those suffering misfortune or in poor health might find, like the refugees, they are in the cross hairs of the big guns of the Coalition. Will Howard's old catch phrase "We will decide who comes to Australia" take on a more muscular tone "We will decide who will survive in Australia" ... well will it?
Bit extreme? Just remember Jane Halton, the cool elegant public servant who headed the Prime Ministers Task Force on People Smuggling that brought us 'children overboard' and SIEVX, and The Pacific Solution, is now in charge of Health. She is a major player in the Howard Government planned health reforms, working closely with the Minister for Health. They are a formidable determined and frightening team.
The Howard Government operates with slow and determined stealth when it moves against the powerless and unfortunate. And these are some of the steps they took.
1. The Howard Government spent millions in taxpayers money propping up some 49 private health insurance funds. Why? It was obvious there were far too many fish in a very small pond and and many of them were bottom feeders. In most other industries smaller or less efficient operators would gone to the wall or been absorbed by more efficient companies. Those left with efficient management and increased customer numbers would have florished and Medicare would have continued in it's original form.
2. The Howard Government then spent millions in taxpayers money paying incentives to people to join the funds.
3. The Howard Government also spent millions in taxpayers money on prime time television advertising to promote the 'reforms' in a very slick commercials showing a smiling family standing under a safe umbrella. The subtext of the script suggested that if the viewer was not under the umbrella by the deadline date they were compromising the health and safety of their families and themselves.
4. It is interesting to note that this advertising campaign like most Howard Government campaigns since targeted people by manipulating fear and insecurity. The Howard Government at the taxpayers expense has become the biggest advertising client in Australia outstripping Coca Cola and McDonalds.
So the Howard Government used our money, to raise our anxieties, so we will do their bidding. Sound familiar? While the Howard Government used commercial advertising in this manner the Prime Minister chatted to shockjocks, appeared on the nightly news, and on current affairs shows pushing the 'health reform' and using forceful phrases in the same manner as the commercials. The division between advertising and editorial became blurred as the message was hammered home again and again and again. Sound familiar?
The well off and the very rich were aware of the benefits to them. So the clear target audience for this campaign were the 'almost managing', the battlers and the working poor. The covert message, that anyone who did not join would be a 'loser', really hit home to those so close to the edge. The Howard Government said they were giving Australians 'choice'. It is a crying shame the electorate did not heed the advice of the magazine of the same name.
In 1998 CHOICE magazine reported that "The Consumers' Association rejects the 30% rebate as a massive subsidy that funds the top end of town at the expense of public hospitals and those on lower incomes." They also delivered the following warning that "The universal Medicare system will then be under threat and become a "safety net" only for those unable to afford private care."
They concluded with this telling statement, which is worth repeating "We currently benefit greatly as a country from our universal Medicare system with cost control from Medicare's large buying power, quality of care and good health outcomes by world standards. It will be a high price to pay for all Australians if Medicare is unwound."
Sadly this message was silenced in the roar of the Howard's Government's media machine. Sound familiar?
John Howard hurled money around in the run-up to this election pretending it was new visionary policy, when all he was doing was enticing voters with the promise of the return of just some of the things he has taken from them over three terms in government. His government clearly doesn't care about the human rights of others. Just imagine how dizzy with power he will be now he has been handed a fourth term. We will never see MEDICARE GOLD. It could be a mandate for destruction not just of Medicare.
Surely the use of the word GOLD should have made some Labor strategists think or remember. But no mention was made of GOLD when John Howard talked of his government's brilliant steady management of the Australian economy. In their first term of office the Howard Government sold off a very large chunk of our gold reserve! They sold it fast and contributed to a disastrous collapse of gold values throughout our region.
Americans would not to give another term in office to any President who emptied Fort Knox.
Australians are very like Americans in so many ways. They have little interest in the day to day workings of government and only notice if they are hit in the hip pocket or one of their own is harmed. The average voter hardly knows anything about those who wish to lead them or what they really stand for. And like very small children they often place their trust in people with regular features. The main players in the Coalition of the Willing, President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK and Australia's John Howard all have very regular features.
There were two Leaders of the Opposition in Howard third term. Mark Latham has unusual features but they are regular and, unlike John Howard, he is a real hit with children he will sit down and read to them and they trust him. Some of the warmest campaign moments came from Latham's easygoing and genuine interaction with children, particularly when one little kid decided to gag him with his own necktie.
There has been little publicity or coverage of the previous Leader of the Opposition Simon Crean with children but there is not doubt of his concern for their well-being. In his first major speech as leader, Simon Crean made it very clear that imprisoning children behind razor wire was - just plain wrong. His skillful work in parliament lead to the Senate Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident which was created to investigate the fabricated 'children overboard' claims which were key to the 2001 Election campaign. He then enabled the extension of the inquiry to cover the tragic sinking of SIEVX. And Simon Crean was the first member of the House of Representatives to send a condolence message to JANNAH THE SIEVX MEMORIAL.
Simon Crean would be considered a handsome man if, somewhere along the line, his nose had not been broken causing his features to appear irregular. He succeeded Kim Beazley who had lost two elections to Howard. Most failed leaders leave the political scene not Beazley. A large man with regular features, apart from the odd little lump and bump, Beazley chose to move to the back benches where he sat like a glowering spectre at the feast.
The vision, actions and policies of the new Leader of the Opposition was so effective that the Australian Labor Party's popularly soared in the opinion polls. But Crean couldn't win a trick with the press. Something was up from the outset of Creans leadership but it was not clear until the Bulletin magazine published a piece by Maxine McKew. McKew is a very fine writer who hosts ABCs Lateline on some nights as well as writing for the Bulletin. Her article entitled 'Beazley's Bullseye' revealed the new-look svelt Beazley's desire to take back the leadership of Labor, and took it from a background rumbling which had been going on for months and slapped it on the national agenda.
It is interesting to note that the former Labor power-broker Bob Hogg is the husband of Maxine McKew because it was Bob Hogg who with surgical timing delivered the unkindest cut of all. The NSW faction of the Labor party several leadship hopefulls who became known as ' the roosters' were running a campaign to destroy Simon Crean. It was so professional and effective that it isolated him from public acknowledgement and separated his leadership from the popularity he has brought to his party. In June Labor's NSW secretary Eric Roozendaal went to Canberra to tell Labor politicians why Simon Crean's acceptance rating in the polls remained low. He knew exactly why, he he was one of the movers and the shakers.
"We're talking about saving the party here. It is not a personal thing in that sense against Simon Crean." an un-named and prominant party member was quoted as saying.
Not personal? Pull the other one! Only with the wisdom of hindsight is it possible to understand just how biblical that moment was when, after Simon Crean's dazzling reply to Budget 2003, Kim Beazley pushed his way through the applauding pack to slap him on the back. Anyone who had seen and heard the inspiring speech would have recognised Simon Crean had what it takes to be Prime Minister of Australia and genuine plan for a better future.
Beazley was smiling and relaxed, his touch appeared to be the approval of a good bloke conceding to a better bloke. But it wasn't. It was the touch of betrayal. Beazley already knew the fuse was lit and within just over an hour an explosion would occur obliterating everything the Leader of the Opposition had just achieved.
Just over an hour later Tony Jones was interviewing Bob Hogg regarding the leadership of the party on the ABC's Lateline. Sure it was fair enough that there should be analysis of the speech which Hogg commended in a lacklustre fashion but that was not what the interview was about. This dull, somewhat gratuitous, interview was about the 'leadership crisis' and Bob Hogg's claim that Simon Crean should be replaced, seemed curiously inappropriate and poorly timed. But the timing proved exquisite and it was widely reported effectively sabotaging Crean's brilliant speech.
When Labor goes a leader the brutal spectacle is reminiscent of the Circus Maximus. Hogg's blow might have been expected to cause a fatal wound but is seems indicative of Simon Crean's strength of character that he did not falter but instead delivered a raft of policies for the future. And despite all hindrence he was been able lead the party to new popularity in the opinion polls. However it seems the ALP's success is not enough for some people.
"This is a group of people who believe to stand back and do nothing is treason." another un-named Labor identity was quoted as saying.
Treason! Treason indeed. This is the language of another era which summons up the sinister spectre of the DLP. Those interested in political history will no doubt shudder at the thought. The Democratic Labor Party split from the ALP in the fifties shortly after Chifley's famous 'light on the hill' speech. They kept Labor from governing Australia for more than two decades their determination to damage the party to which they once belonged such a priority that they even directed preferences to the coalition.
The spectre of the DLP seemed disquietingly evident when Kim Beazley's total lack of opposition allowed the Howard Government to bring in harsh policies which have had absolutely tragic results for the most powerless and vulnerable people in the community and from overseas. Why was it when Simon Crean took on John Howard, exposed the lies and opposed the excesses of authoritarian rule, that certain factions of the Australian Labor Party seem so anxious to decapitate it's Leadership?
On June 16 the leadership went to the vote in the Labor caucus Simon Crean won by a decisive vote 58-34 Beazley accepted defeat but it was far from over. On the November 28 Simon Crean placing the party before his own interests resigned from the leadership and put his support behind Mark Latham. On December 2, 2003 Mark Latham defeated Beazley by 47 votes to 45 to become the new Leader of the Opposition.
That afternoon Simon Crean stood for the last time as Leader of the Opposition at Question Time in the House of Representatives. He demanded of the Howard Government that the children in detention be released from behind the razor wire. The following day Mark Latham the new Leader of the Opposition repeated Crean's request.
In July 2004 Latham arranged for the hawkish and pro-American Kim Beazley to be Labor's defense spokesman. Beazley served as Australian defense minister from 1984-1990, during which time he earned the nicknames "Bomber Beazley" and "Kimbo" (after Rambo). Latham like Crean had been attacked publicly by the U.S Ambassador to Australia Tom Schieffer and it was seen as a move to appease George W. Bush. Beazley's affinity with the Bush administration is only marginally less than Howard's and his greatest passion outside of politics is the American Civil War.
Beazley won his seat of Brand in Western Australia and due to the time zones across the continent he was able to have the last say on the election. He was interviewed on the ABC by the host of the election telecast Maxine McKew. He was swift to rule out any ambition of returning to the leadership. He said he believed Mr Latham had in fact saved the party from electoral meltdown, based on disastrous internal party polling figures he had seen last year.
"Mark Latham has, in the leadership position in the Labor Party, pulled us back from what looked like utter disaster towards the end of last year," he said not missing another swipe at Simon Crean. Despite the disappointing election outcome, Kim Beazley appeared happy and said there was absolutely no chance of a challenge to Mark Latham's leadership.
This is how challenges usually commence. And today Michael Costello former Beazley Chief of Staff and head of DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) speaking on ABC radio analysed Labor's loss.
This was a complete train wreck. We now face probably at least two terms before we can win government again, we face at least three years with John Howard pretty much in control of the Senate.
Labor did not win the election campaign, except for the middle two weeks when Howard was clearly rattled by Latham's very good performance in the debate.
Labor was comprehensively done, especially in strategic terms. Its Medicare Gold was a strategic disaster, as last week was the campaign from hell. There was hardly a mistake they didn't make.
The prime responsibility for this lies with Mark Latham and those that put him there. This attempt to dodge accountability – if we won this election, would anyone say it wasn't Mark Latham's doing? This rationalisation does Labor no good. It has to face up to the reality of what happened or it is doomed to irrelevance.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1217194.htm
But of course a Beazley supporter would say that, just as they are now blaming Simon Crean and saying he put 'Latham the loser' in as leader of the party. They want Beazley back as Leader of the Opposition. Howard will want Beazley back as his loyal Leader of the Opposition. No one on the right of politics would want anyone to be aware that between the two elections Beazley unrequited desire for power has resulted in the tragic destabilizing of his party and contributed in large part to Labor's ignominious defeat in Election 2004.
So after two election losses, two failed attempts to regain the leadership, Beazley is being positioned to have another go. Now might be a good time to recall how Kim Beazley lost the 2001 Election to John Howard and recognise the similarities of the Labor campaign in both elections.
