About a month ago I
promised to not mention Kevin Rudd on Twitter again until the election. I was
tired the distracting instability talk he was driving, and tired of him. There
were bigger issues to discuss, and I was sick of the circular conversation, the
countless hours of QandA and column inches that could have been used to
enlighten us on something, anything of substance.
It became too much
last week, and I gave in. If he could (at long last, openly) go back on his
promise to not only never lead the ALP under any circumstances but stand in the
way of anyone who threatened Julia Gillard’s, I could break mine.
Even the biggest policy-wonk gets caught up in the personality of politics. Leadership instability was not made up by the press gallery, but they fuelled it. And while commentators like Philip Coorey and Mike Carlton gloated about the fact it was now playing out, I think we’re all the poorer for what has become the focus of politics while some pretty important pieces of legislation – some very good, some very bad – were debated and people like Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott earned relatively little widespread respect for consistently talking about things that matter and attempting to raise the level of public discourse in a genuine, down-to-earth manner.
Damn press gallery, making up leadership stuff again #fourthmoveonaPMin3years
— Phillip Coorey (@PhillipCoorey) June 26, 2013
I think I should point out that this entire leadership thing is just speculation by the corrupt and biased MSM...
— Mike Carlton (@MikeCarlton01) June 26, 2013
Many members of the
ALP decided that the end goal of politics is winning elections rather than
leading the nation. Sure, you can’t change anything in opposition, but if you
won’t effectively lead people in the direction you believe to be right, then
what’s the point in even being there?
They chose someone who with a poor record of to managing government and major policy, and who
has spent three years sabotaging the party, but who is inconceivably popular. He could very well have used this popularity to help the party if he supported the former
Prime Minister as much as he often claimed to, or he could have helped by leaving the place with dignity if he
couldn’t find it within himself to put the events of 2010 behind him. What
values have the the ALP reinforced by rewarding his behaviour and playing along with
the polls they tell us don’t count?
Leaders change in our
system, and we do not – despite Kevin Rudd’s own statement upon restoration to the role that the
people voted for him in 2007 – elect the Prime Minister. Julia Gillard’s move
into the role was not ideal, but at least occurred largely in an effort to
improve the management of government.
It already seems Kevin
Rudd has lifted the party’s popularity and I’ll give him this: he is good at
engaging on a superficial level, which is where most of the Australian
political discourse takes place. But that’s what I’d like to change.
Personalities always have and always will matter. They should to some extent, although it's getting out of control now. We want to
see someone who reflects our values and can lead. Neither leader of the major
parties much demonstrates values or personality traits I admire.
So here’s the silver
lining. Having reason to dislike the approach of both leaders takes the
personality aspect out of it for me to a large extent, leaving me feeling freer
to think and talk critically about their policies.
One of the two will
form government and, overall, the ALP policy platform will no doubt again suit
my ideology better than the Coalition’s. But I am not going to be ‘getting
behind the team’ to keep Tony out. The two men are as bad as each other as far
as I can tell, so it’s a good opportunity to forget about which one I like more
and focus on what they plan to do.
We deserve better than
both of them, and both the parties they lead.
