The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Take a leaf out of the Beattie manual > Comments

Take a leaf out of the Beattie manual : Comments

By Graham Young, published 30/8/2011

The Craig Thomson scandal could even be a positive for Gillard, if handled the right way.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
>> Apparently the Thomson issues were known before he was preselected, so why wasn't he vetted out? You don't need proof of criminality to decide that someone's history represents too great a risk. There's room for an internal inquiry into party structures here at the very least. <<

Probably for the same reasons most parties don't worry excessively about their candidates - as long as they are reasonable and meet the basic requirement vis a vis criminal record, they are accepted for preselection.

As, stated, none of this Sturm und Drang would've even occurred had Labor had a clear majority. Perhaps, the Libs could learn from this lesson as well, prior to the next election - they are far from shiny clean either.

A good start for the Libs would be to find a leader who has actual policies instead of a succession of back-flips. And if they do win the next election, they might be wise to thoroughly vet their candidates - a Labor in opposition will be eager to even the score.

Just sayin'.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 9:11:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My comment on this article by Graham is..... 'please go early, Ms Gillard’ and we will then see the carnage that will occur whether early or not or even full term, the result will be the same.
Beattie on board in whatever capacity will not save her. Nothing will.

She is universally disliked and enjoys no respect, not even in her own party.

Gillard is everything this country does not need. She is compromised beyond belief and is currently 'stacking' her front bench with compromised politicians of like mind; she has shown by her actions that she has extremely poor judgement in so many ways, too many to mention; she has lied to the Australian public and her subsequent efforts to overcome these mistakes and the Thompson matter as well, have highlighted her incompetence as did the insulation fiasco, education revolution and the mining tax, all showing her bumbling inputs.

She appears to have a total regard only for her own skills, the master of the “I” pronoun.
When everything is based on the “I”, then we all know where to 'point the bone'.

Last weekend we saw articles on the subject in the newspapers, but one in particlar deserves a comment. It was a West Australian writer, Peter van Onselen, pumping for an eventual replacement of Gillard by Stephen Smith, coincidentally also from Western Australia, a colourless, indecisive politician who has demonstrated in his own little bailiwick, Defence, that he has little knowledge of how to run a department, let alone a country. He is uninspiring and a poor leader and far from being a respected motivator.

Motivation. That is what is needed right now in our apathetic, leaderless, sycophantic US appendage; a sense of independence in foreign policy, pride in our achievements (other than the sporting field), a confidence that we are heading in the right direction and respect and tolerance for all peoples, whoever they are, whatever they think.
The divisive policies expounded by our current politicians are the very last thing we need.

Abbott or Gillard? Labor or the Coalition?

What a choice
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 9:25:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12542#216671

Ammonite, do you live in the land of OZ or some other fairy tale land?

Both major mistake parties have an excellent record of thoroughly vetting candidates for a "safe" seat & only allowing the ocasional "honest" local candidate into marginal seats.

How else do you think Barnaby Joyce got into the senate? Senior national party leadership never in their wildest dreams thought his original senate slot was winable, otherwise they would have selected a dishonest candidate.

Good article but it is already too late for Juliar Dillard to give it a try, if she had done this on day one maybe it could have worked.

But the Beattie method is already well understood by Queenslanders as a scapegoat, white wash solution.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 9:33:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only way a bad government can win an election is if the opposing side looks worse. NSW and QLD are good examples of that.

Given that many Labor candidates come from the unions, it might also pay for those organisations to assess some of their internal policies and regulations including instant dismissal should funds be misappropriated.

One of the gripes with unions is their too close ties with the ALP and lack of care as regards their membership base. The ALP has also finding out the hard way what happens when you ignore the rank and file.

It would seem political suicide to take a high risk candidate like Thomson if all the facts were known - visiting prostitutes is not in itself a crime only misappropriating funds for that purpose.

Gillard is not 'condoning' the alleged behaviour she is avoiding a by-election. It may also go against the PM should she sack an MP based on unsubstantiated allegations no matter how bad it looks. Best to wait for the results of the investigation and take action. Our system of justice rests on a presumption of innocence not trials by media.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 9:34:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican

>> Our system of justice rests on a presumption of innocence not trials by media. <<

I begin to wonder.

You may find the following article of interest at The Conversation:

"Over the last five years, Australian politics has undergone a quiet revolution. It has killed off political parties with long-term ideology and platforms, and replaced them with politicians who are market-driven, short-term in focus, and chase after electoral success at any cost

The revolution has swept all before it to change the way politics is not only seen but consumed."

http://theconversation.edu.au/democracy-is-dead-long-live-political-marketing-2666

We have been reduced to consumers - which explains the pre-judgement and type of campaigning we see from the current opposition. The sad fact is I don't expect Labor to be any more effective than the Libs in Opposition.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 9:51:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most people are missing the point about Thompson and brothelgate.

One old-time politician (Senior moment... I forget his name)who was on TV with Beattie when Beattie pushed the spin about 'assumptions of innocence', put his finger on the issue.

He rejected outright any notions about criminality and stated the issue in the public mind is not about criminality but is about the behaviour.

The part of the electorate most angry and asking the questions about the behaviour are those once most supportive of Gillard. Woman and particularly young women.

Anacdotal evidence seems to support this. Last night Q and A a young women asked what type of message did Gillard send when her response was to defend Thompson in the face of the allegations of brothel visiting?

The answers from the socialist love-in writers panel mirrored the government spin on the aspect of criminality. The lefties just didn't get it, none addressed the young woman's question on the behaviour.

Just have a chat with the next young woman you talk to. Most seem to think Thompson, from my observations, is getting a 'free ride' or more specifically that the standards applied to him are different from the standards that are applied in the wider community. Especially those pertaining to respect for women.

That group is a crucial segment of Gillard's electoral support and they get it. Gillard's popularity will continue to plummet ... still further... as will the ALP'S.

The only question in my mind is; Who is left for them to ostracise?
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 11:27:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite, the Liberal Party certainly has a vetting process in place. I was party to vetting at least one candidate out when I was Queensland VP, and the LNP has an even stricter policy than we did. They put people through psychometric testing, which I think is probably going too far.

Having said that, you generally don't worry too much about candidates that are in unwinnable seats, which explains some of the eccentrics who make it in landslide elections.

The article on The Conversation is typical academic twaddle. Marketing has been an integral part of election campaigns as long as I've been involved - and that dates back to the 70s. There has been no change in the last 5 years that I can discern.

I think the quality of politicians has deteriorated in that time, as well as the ambit of what is being disputed. Gone are the days when Labor would advocate nationalisation, for example, so that the differences between the parties are relatively minor. This leaves not a lot to talk about apart from the personality and the strategy and tactics.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 12:30:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY:"I think the quality of politicians has deteriorated in that time,"

Not coincidentally: "The EMILY's List journey began in 1994".

EMILY's List is all about the promotion of a single-issue agenda (radical feminism in their case) at the expense of all other priorities. There are no equivalent groups other than some of the more fundamentalist churches, as far as I can make out.

This group now dominates ALP politics behind the scenes. It is "soft" power, that makes those subject to it self-regulate for fear of attracting consequences from the very powerful women who hide in the shadows, watching everything said to ensure it "frames the debate" in a "progressive" way, as George Lakoff put it.

The ALP has always been saddled with the task of carrying left-over Union types who had outlived their welcome among the workers. That has been to some ecxtent a a strength, as well, since these people were used to negotiating with powerful corporate types and had some appreciation of the nuances. It was also a terrible burden, since some of them had no means of regulating their pseudo-Marxist rhetorical and philosophical roots, which lead them into making foolish decisions that the party had to deal with.

Those Unionists are still there, but increasingly they are EMILY's List members as well. Not to mention the several ALP women parliamentarians who have no significant background in anything except gender politics.

When you have vast experience in sloganeering and little of substance, then any discussion you hold will perforce be restricted to slogans, no matter what your interlocutor might say.

Thus we have the modern ALP and reflecting it, the modern Coalition. After all, if slogans are all that will be heard, then slogans must be invented and chanted.

It's affirmative-action dumbing-down.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 12:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Graham. A major opportunity lost for Gillard, and it’s hard imagine she’ll get a second chance. She’s been a weak leader since knifing Rudd -- the faceless clique who did for Kevin still hover around her. Minority government has further reduced scope for her to show her strengths.

Imagine, though, how the dynamic would have changed had she banished Thompson to the cross-benches as soon as his nasty details hit the headlines, then fast-tracked the investigation into his pecadillos and HSU’s bankruptcy. Worst case would be a lost by-election. Abbott might have used that to bring down the government, of course, but charges he’s a ‘wrecker’ could have triggered a groundswell in Gillard’s direction; she’s already perceived as hard-done-by. She’d have proven beyond question that she put good, open government ahead of her personal ambitions, and that she was in no way beholden to the factional warlords who made her PM. Abbott’s not ready for an early election; his strategy has been to keep his powder dry while Labour shoots off its own feet. Best case, she’s proven she’s honest, and is willing to risk her authority to maintain high standards. Even if she lost, Labour would’ve been competitive next time around.

Instead, she ignored the matter. Bad judgement, assuming the smell of Thompson’s rotting career would just dissipate, or that Fair Work Australia would be allowed another year or three to finish its assessment of the evidence against him. As things stand, she appears not just weak, but unprincipled. And she’s accommodating Abbott’s preferred election schedule: next year, when electricity prices go up another 15%, the Carbon Tax kicks in, and GFC Mk II accelerates.

Too late now, probably. When you’re outnumbered, surrounded, and running low on ammunition, that’s the time to attack -- the alternative is certain defeat, or humiliating surrender. Gillard’s best hope now is that Thompson can drag out his damnation for another year, that the Greens and Independents will put up with stasis indefinitely, and that Abbott will miraculously disintegrate. Sorry, Julia, but you don’t bet, you can’t win.
Posted by donkeygod, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 10:47:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham; Don't good advice to these bunch of clowns and incompetents.I want them out of our misery ASAP.

Our current account deficit is now over $ 800 billion and growing thanks to these fools.Abbott is not an inspiring leader but a step in the right direction is to end the CO2 tax and rein in Govt waste.

We will be paying $ billions more to countries like China on the form of carbon taxes and the ETS for no good reason.It is totally inane!
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 6:47:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GY

Unlike you I see the choice between the Labor Party and the Libs as a choice between bad and worse.

No point in critiquing Labor without due consideration of an Abbott led Liberal Party.

What the voter (AKA the consumer) has is a choice of brands - generic ones at that.

"Do we have the rise of the political class where the advisors see what they are doing as a step to a safe seat?

It is important to understand that there are different types of roles within ministerial offices and many different kinds of people working in them. There is a bit of nuance about that and I prefer not to generalise. Broadly though, most offices have policy people, who may or may not have a substantive background in the minister’s portfolio; political and issues manager types who might handle relationships with the party, for example; there are media and communications people who tend to come from journalistic or public relations backgrounds. Then there is a group of administrative and support people who handle appointments, invitations, correspondence and so on. Experienced administrative staff are highly sought after; sometimes they work for one minister and then the next. It sounds obvious, but having good staff is incredibly important – as much because it creates the perception of ministerial effectiveness and competence, as well as the reality.

How many staff there are depends on the minister’s position: cabinet ministers have more staff than junior ministers; the Prime Minister, Treasurer and senior ministers have more staff and they’re more senior as you would expect. The mix of staff and skills required depends on the portfolio, but it also reflects what the minister him/herself wants and feels will suit their preferences and working style.

Not everyone who works in a ministerial office has political aspirations but it is clear that many of the people who go on to achieve pre-selection have come through a policy advisory or media advisory type and yes, it is absolutely a stepping stone to pre-selection in those cases."

Cont'd
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:08:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont'd

"You can look down the federal front bench of both sides of Australian politics and very many of them spent time working in what I would call para-political roles. Gillard was, Abbott was, Hockey [was](http://www.joehockey.com/meetjoe/default.aspx.

There are contending views about the desirability of this. Some people think that politics is a professional game and you really have to have the knowledge and skills to know how to operate effectively in it. Others are concerned that people are coming from a very narrow career background to these roles and both Labor and the Coalition have asked themselves at the party level whether this is a good thing."

http://theconversation.edu.au/spinning-it-the-power-and-influence-of-the-government-advisor-2406

PS

I'm sure you'll get a heads up from the Libs for spinning this website in your own image. Have you noticed that the number posters have diminished lately? Just a few brave progressives continuing such as; Turn Right Turn Left, Pelican, Squeers. The majority are mostly rusted on conservatives. Was this your goal for OLO? I'm sure that Anti can spin this as being a feminist plot.
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 9:09:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite, you're always quick with the insinuation. There are plenty of left of centre posters on the site. But it appears that your type of left has a problem when right of centre views are published as well as theirs.

This site is supposed to be about debate and engagement, and if one side of the debate doesn't want to engage that isn't just their problem, it is society's problem.

I've just done a quick count of the articles published in the last week and classified them as left/right/centre or N/A. Most of the N/A articles were about bullying, or other issues where there isn't any sort of clear divide.

The result was 10 Left, 8 Right, 3 Centre and 11 N/A. Pretty good I would have said. I also checked the reads and the Left ones were less well-read, but as there were more of them they received more reads than the Right. Centre and N/A received the best average number of reads.

BTW, I'm looking forward to seeing a criticism from you of Labor everytime your criticise the Liberals as you suggest I should do.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 10:20:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite:"Just a few brave progressives continuing "

Lexi will be feeling left out.

More seriously, have you considered that this simply reflects the fact that the "progressive" side of politics is on the nose with most people? I'm a reformed life-long Labor voter and I know lots of people who feel the same. I still think Howard was possibly Australia's worst ever PM, but the ALP (the name on the brass plaque at the Lodge is irrelevant) is doing its best to make him look good.

Beattie's approach worked because he was decisive and he had control of the Caucaus and a lot of personal charisma. He was a self-confessed media tart. He fed the chooks in the same way as his good friend Joh did and he is still doing it today.

Gillard simply doesn't have the personal authority, the charisma, the friendship with the media that Beattie does. Moreover, she's already thrown her reputation for honesty in the bin, so she's got nothing.

All the libnats have to do is wait.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 2:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"All the libnats have to do is wait."

Have you had a look at what we'll get with them?

Frightening.
Abbott, Hockey, Bishops 1 and 2, Andrews, Brandis, Pyne, Ruddock, and Barnaby what's-his-name and the ghosts of Minchin and the now extremely rusty, 'man of steel'.

If recycling, you wouldn't get a kilo of worhtwhile mulch from the lot. The one good thing in 2011 is that the embarrassing 'lace stockings' Downer has left the boat, but sadly, ten years too late.
Posted by rexw, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 6:26:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, do be careful, I just may be coming to get you.

Why did you have to bring Beattie into the Labor thought process? Next thing we hear is them wanting to do a "Newman", & make him leader in waiting, to replace Julia.

The worst thing is that most Ozzies don't realise how bl00dy hopeless he is. Secondly it's that huge grin, so loved by TV cameramen.

I reckoned it was worth every cent of the quarter of a million or so a year we payed him to go to the US, just to get that grinning face off our TV screens. It was getting so bad, it was not worth watching the news.

I was horrified when he came back early. Just how bad would it be, if he was running for PM. I'd have to move to some where more pleasant, like Outer Mongolia, to escape those teeth.

How could you do it to us, even in jest?
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 1 September 2011 11:20:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy