Meet the Forkers
The Christian blogosphere is buzzing with the news that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are the new team in charge of the Federal Labor Party. Many have referred to this article in the Monthly in which Rudd sets out his admiration of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and sets out his view on the role of faith in politics. It is a measured piece and contains some wise insights. Though it seems to me that at least some of the commenters are impliedly suggesting that Christian people should vote ALP because Rudd is a Christian, which is one of the things that Rudd specifically argues against in his article. Ahh, the irony.
While I have always liked Gillard (though her annoyingly braying accent does seem at odds with her waspish fastidiousness), I do hope that she is not planning to go all Brutus on Rudd and try and grab the top job. I think that the Australian public would elect a woman PM but I can’t see people electing a single childless person (of either gender). Too much of the “Australian experience” hinges on kids and family. I do note that she has apparently been parading her “Melbourne based boyfriend” sufficiently that he warrants a newspaper article being written about him. It seems rather odd to talk about a 45 year old woman having a “boyfriend”, but if she was trying to put to rest any lingering “single, childless, neat and short-haired” inferences about her sexuality, I guess you would want to avoid neutral terms like “partner” (and I’m guessing no politician is going to come out and refer to a lover).
I watched the Forkers (so nominated by Tim Blair for Rudd’s repeated “fork in the road” allusion) being interviewed a couple of times last night (sample question from Tracy Grimshaw - “‘A bridge too far’ - that’s not really the sort of rhetoric that is going to ignite the imagination of the Australian public is it?”). I thought they did pretty well by playing it straight, allowing a few giggles and speaking about each other like real people (Rudd said that they didn’t have to agree all the time to be good friends and it struck me that I have hardly ever heard a politician refer to a colleague as a friend).
I have long thought that Australian people look more favourably on politicians who are straight talkers who avoid weasel words. It was one of the reasons Mark Latham was popular (before it became apparent that he was quite mad). It was the reason why Jeff was popular in Victoria even when he was shutting every school, hospital and council that he could get his hands on. See also Keating, Paul and Hawke, Robert. I was half barracking for the Forkers to be brutally honest last night and acknowledge that Julia was ambitious for the top job but they both considered that the current team was the one most likely to bring electoral success. They got close to saying it but not quite.
So my wishlist for the ALP in the 2007 election campaign which pretty much starts now:
- For heaven’s sake, no gimmicks. No signing of interest rate guarantees etc
- Fight Howard, not Costello.
- Hold the government accountable for their lies and cover-ups
- Point out what the ALP will do *differently* than the Coalition
- Do not allow yourself to get tied up in tax cut comparisons
Your thoughts and predictions for the 2007 federal election?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Firstly, I want the Federal ALP to stop talking about what’s wrong with Howard. It doesn’t work. It’s the effective equivalent of telling people who voted for him last time, and who they need to vote for them this time, that they were wrong. Never a vote winner.
Instead, they should talk about what’s not right in Australia, and then proceed to outline the changes they’d make to fix it.
Secondly, they should engage in defensive political positioning on several key issues. The positions they should take are good policy and are ALP policy, but they should be enuniciated NOW. They are
- child care. I suspect the next Budget, in May ‘07, will have massive electoral bribes aimed at working women concerning child care. If the ALP gets on the front foot about this, it will look like they are driving the agenda, and it is good policy.
- superannuation. This is also an area I suspect the Government will focus on in the May budget. The ALP should be talking about the Keating Government’s proposal to move from 9% to 15% compulsory superannuation contribution, and how it was reversed bvy the incoming Liberal administration in 1996. Advocate tax cuts paid as super to help fund an ageing population. Again, good policy, and prevents the Government stealing a march on what is essentially ALP turf in the Budget.
- terrorism. Use the historical parallel of John Curtin’s recall of troops from the European theatre to PNG during WWII to argue for withdrawal of resources and focus from Iraq and Afghanistan to Indonesia. Point out that Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim nation, with an active and strengthening terror network, and a place where terrorism has already struck twice, claiming Aussie lives. Berate the Government for being a US cheer squad at the expense of the local neighbourhood.
This is not only good policy, and taps into anti-Iraq sentiment without sounding all Green Left Weekly, but also protects the ALP from political damage if there was to be another Bali bombing or suchlike.
Thirdly, they MUST get their portfolio allocations right. My thoughts….
Gillard to Education - fertile ground that Macklin completely failed to exploit.
Swan to stay in Treasury - he bores everyone to death, a good quality in an ALP Shadow Treasurer.
Tanner to IR - once again, fertile ground, and he’s one of the brightest in the caucus, capable of destroying Andrews.
Garrett to Immigration - keeps the Left happy, while allowing Garrett to show his moderate side.
Tony Burke to Environment - huge weakness for the Government, and Burke is one of the most talented young frontbenchers in the caucus, able to connect with the exact demographic who are concernend with climate change.
Smith to Health - did a wonderful job as Shadow Health Minister last time, but has bungled IR completely.
Lastly, Rudd must be the man running the show, inside and out. Too much Gillard will scare the punters silly…the branches love her, but she’s got more than a touch of the Lathams. Rudd can at once reassure swinging voters of his moderacy, and offer an alternative vision. Not too much of the double act, and lots of Kevin Rudd, front and centre.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
short note.
Ruddy is a liberal anglo-catholic which is what Tony Blair is and what Bill Temple was for those old enough to remember with the full employment report for the UK at the end of the war.
Can’t say I am too enamoured by the naming of Bonhoeffer perhaps I am too cynical but the recent release of the film maybe the main reason.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Garrett to Immigration is a good move. I think that one of the keys is going to be Foreign Affairs - both AWB and terrorism are going to fall squarely in that portfolio so you need to have someone who is going to make more mileage of those issues that it appears Rudd has been able to so far this year.
The other question mark for me is the Shadow Attorney General - the Howard “war on terrorism” has a lot of room to position itself with the new “fairness” mantra on Hicks, the terror laws etc. Needs someone to take this issue out of the academic latte left and make it bite with the Today Tonights and ACA people.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
See, Dan, that’s where I disagree. Labor will NOT make any headway bollocking on about AWB or David Hicks. I’d leave Nicola Roxon (Nicola Who?) in the shadow AG’s role, for one. Foreign Affairs….I dunno, maybe Senator Evans…??
Terrorism needs to be argued as a Defence issue - how can we better protect Australia? - rather than as a “Howard lies” issue. If Beazley had been hanging around he would have made a great expert in that position. As it is, Rudd is probably still the best prosecutor of the “We could be doing better in the War on Terror” argument.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
You seem to be pandering to the HOmer vote with this line Dan.
Who really cares what brand of faith is his Homer? Why this need to label people - and notice how quickly you did it?
December 5th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
FWIW
Here’s a link to a transcript of an interview with Kevin Rudd on ABC Radio National’s Religion Report, shortly after his article in The Monthly Magazine.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2006/1754614.htm#
December 6th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Yeah, nice branding Homer.
What on earth are you on about in your next paragraph? Are you suggesting that Bonhoeffer is not to be admired?
December 6th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Let me clarify my position. I think that the “nyeah nyeah he’s a liar” argument doesn’t work but that is because nobody is suggesting that they would do any differently. It comes across as a “nyeah nyeah, you got caught” kind of thing.
I would like to see the response to AWB be a party which talks about the fact that in today’s political climate Australia needs to behave impeccably on the world stage, that we need to have a government who takes responsibility for the actions of its government agencies and actively works to remove the possibility of corruption. On terrorism and law stuff they need to say “Now more than ever people are suspicious of Australians and we vow to ensure that all Australians are protected by the basic freedoms and liberties that we have spent the last 100 years building. If we don’t the terrorists will win etc.”
December 6th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Here’s my concern,
I like Rudd ( i think) but……what chances to we have of a Christian candidate from an inland, north of Brisbane electorate having progressive views about Gay people?
Give me the unmarried female redhead (Gillard) from the south. Something tells me i’d fare better under her.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:57 am
certainly not his theology Bec
December 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am
You don;t like Bonhoeffers theology? Hmmm, ok…I suppose?
Hey Singer, haven’t seen you for ages - welcome back
December 6th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Homer,
So, Bonhoeffer’s probably one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, and many of those whom you have referred to in admiration are profoundly influenced by him, yet you don’t like his theology. Interesting.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Reve,
I’ve never heard Rudd talking about the issue of sexuality at all, and there’s some pretty full-on stereotyping going on in your post there! I was at a forum the other day where someone observed that the assumption that certain people would have more progressive views is hardly borne out when you look at the current High Court!
December 6th, 2006 at 11:16 am
I sense a series on Bonhoeffer coming up. Perhaps excerpts from Letters and Papers from Prison, to be shortly followed by MLKJ’s “letter from an alabama jail” (title from memory).
December 6th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Well, he does decribe himself as a Christian Socialist on Geraldine Doogue’s “Compass”, but that is just a title. Look, i’m excited about this guy as well, but i’m not excited about seeing him curry favour with the conservatives by strategically avoiding any Gay issues, before or after election success.
Latham may have ben a loose canon, but he always had my respect because you always knew what his views were. Give me a brawler over a player any day. Less confusion.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Methinks he will toe the party line on this - gays are very nice people and equal and stuff so long as they don’t want to get married. But I think that with rumblings in the coalition backyard on this issue, both sides are going to run a mile from it while acting non-committal.
He seems to suggest in the linked article that religious viewpoints should be heard and if they don’t reflect the will of the people then they should be overruled. If he were to maintain this view about abortion etc, then that would probably be a stance I could respect.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Bec,
That stereotyping may not be welcome, but it’s not based in ignorance. All my Dad’s side of the family (& some of my mum’s) live north of Brisbane (Sunshine Coast & inland) inclusing my Godparents (Aunt & Uncle). They are all the type of smaller AOG suburban congregants who picket abortion clinics & gay pride rallies. When i see them, they say things like “i still love you, but…..”
Gotta love the “but”.
I have a 21 yo old cousin whom lives not far from Nambour (Rudd-land) whom, unlike me, is so obviously gay it is not funny. He has only female friends, is isolated, lonely & totally out of touch with himself because he is terrified of violence from other locals. I have tried contacting him by email (at the request of his mum who is worried about him) just to let him know subtly there are alternatives to feeling this way. He just clams up & says “gotta go”. Very, very sad.
This is the electorate Rudd represents & has to appease.
And if that is unfair to stereotype areas…..is it unfair to say that Mosman or Vaucluse are traditionally blue-ribbon areas & that their candidate will almost certainly reflect those values as well? Of course not, it’s just reality.
Of course i will vote for Rudd, i just don’t believe anything will change for ppl like me.
Be honest, ….do you?
December 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Like David Duchovny (Mulder) says: “I want to Believe”
But we can’t pretend to still be young & idealistic when we know more than we wish we did.
I’m not mid-twenties & voting for a charismatic person anymore, I’m mid thirties & hoping to vote for issues.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Reve,
Sure, ‘Christian Socialist” can just be a label, but I think it’s quite a liability! Most Christians will write you off as liberal (*cough*), most socialists will write you off as conservative and brainwashed. Rudd’s written a fair bit in newspapers, periodicals etc, and I certainly haven’t had any reason to believe it’s “just” a label.
Do I believe anything will change for people like you?
Uh, it is. The major Christian lobby groups are changing their stance. Ie. Australian Christian Lobby, which I understand is now looking at the registration of relationships. ACL is hardly progressive!! Rudd’s been working very hard to build his relationship with Christian lobby groups, and I’m sure that he’s played at least some role in that change of stance. While he may curry favour with conservative groups, he may also be able to shift them on some significant issues. That’s politics!
December 7th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Luke, Dan… you guys should be employed by the ALP… great comments.
Rudd needs a new PR person. “Fork in the Road” and “Bridge too Far” are even lamer than Downer’s ill fated “the things that matter” mantra… for those old enough to remember that embarassing political episode. (I think he sealed his electoral coffin with the joke about his domestic violence policy being “the things that batter”… probably the fishnet stocking episode didn’t help either… uggh)
Electorally speaking, my only concern about putting policies upfront too far before an election is that any policies that strike a chord with the electorate are promptly stolen by John Howard… or he at least borrows the rhetoric and promises an adapted version of this policy some time. Which may be good for governance, but not for winning an election. I think you need “election momentum” with some significant populist policies hidden up your sleeve.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
True, Janet, but you then run the risk of the Government setting the agenda and you running a long way behind. The Government is constantly polling the electorate on their concerns anyway, so it won’t take an ALP policy to alert them to the electoral potential of any one issue.
“Luke, Dan… you guys should be employed by the ALP” One of us already is
December 7th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Perhaps there’s hope for the ALP!
True, you can’t provide nothing positive while in opposition or you just sound like a pack of whingers. I still think you need a couple of fresh rabbits to pull out of the hat while in election mode to get people talking when it counts… ie when they are about to vote.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Dan, a series on Bonhoeffer would be great - perhaps even a series on several different Theologians -Barth, Lisa, Homer - even Marge! (Although I’m joking about Marge - too liberal even for me - a series would be great!)
December 12th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Will do, but at this rate might be in the new year.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Kevin Rudd talks on Christian faith matters.
http://www.historymakersradio.com/HM-KRudd%20Web%20Edit.mp3
April 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Don’t know if this is right post but for everyone out there sick of conservative Christians getting all the political attention, ADHDLibrarian and I have started a political lobby group called Progression: Christians for Social Justice. Check it out at progressioncsj@blogspot.com
Actually it’s funny, I was interviewed last week by my local paper about Progresison, and signposts scored a big mention because adhd and I reconnected thorugh this website after having known each other about a decade ago.
so if you are interested have a look
April 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
that is an e-mail address not a URL. If you go to progressioncsj.blogpost.com you arrive at a fundo site. Can you give us another go at a URL?
April 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
sorry accidentally put @ in there. It should be
http://progressioncsj.blogspot.com/
April 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Lance
listened to the Rudd interview at 25 above.
Hard mix I think - politics and being a Christian - I like to think he’s hanging in there.
Thanks
MN