Political punditry gone insane

I cannot believe what I am reading in the media and on the blogs at the moment re suggestions for Federal Labor to improve its position.

And no, I'm not talking right wing blogs full of ratbaggery: they just want to have an election and aren't about suggesting what Labor can do, unless it's something facetiously self serving, such as Andrew Bolt's call for a new leader who should drop the carbon tax. (In a sign of desperation, Bolt has taken to calling for a new leader to replace Gillard within a week or so, before the carbon tax legislation is introduced to Parliament.)

It's the Left leaning commentary that has gone insane. Firstly, there's old Phillip Adams calling for Kevin Rudd to be re-instated as leader. I don't hold his political punditry in high regard anyway, but his failure to see through the flim-flammery and flakiness of much of what Rudd did in the first year is typical of some on the Left. He seems to think Rudd is an intellectual powerhouse: I think most objective people see shallowness whenever he tries to show his smarts.

But even someone who generally writes intelligently and in a moderate voice, like John Quiggin, has given up on Labor having any chance under Gillard, and suggests she gets the carbon tax through and then resign for the good of the Party. Yeah right: she finally gets a big and difficult reform through Parliament, and she should say "well, people don't like me, so I'm off." I just can't fathom the logic of this. Quiggin suggests that while he didn't used to think Rudd should replace her, he thinks he is acceptable now, due to his having "more credibility"on the asylum seeker issue (!). This is just nuts, if you ask me. And as with all people suggesting a graceful Gillard departure, it's not as if they can point to an obvious successor.

Even more bizarre are some of the comments on the Lefty blog Larvatus Prodeo, where Kim takes essentially the same position as Quiggin, and many in comments agree. Fran, who actually can hold her ground in arguing about a carbon tax, goes as far as to write this insane bit on Gillard:

I didn’t respect her before she took the job and her appearance as the candidate of the mining thugs only served to lower my already poor impression of her. Throw in attacks on The Greens as entitled latte-sipping alarm-clock ignoring intellectuals and Gillard is Bolt in drag. The roll out of “people smugglers’ business model” ad vomitus gets her the unremittingly egregious tag. The only thing positively distinguishing her from Abbott is that at the margins, The Greens still exercise some restraint on her regime. Without that, I’d watch the government go over the edge of the abyss and spit on them on the way down.

In the papers, the moderate Mumble blog gets the analysis right:

We’re in a strange place. If this federal government announced it was erecting a new set of traffic lights*, local businesses would protest, residents would fret, petitions would be signed and convoys embarked upon.

MPs in Western Sydney would report that the issue was killing them—and Graham Richardson would agree.

These are odd, but special, political times. Yes it’s the policies a bit, but more than that is a dysfunctional dynamic.

But then suggests:

Could a new leader, perhaps after the passage of the carbon legislation, quarantine the Greens and generate some authority?

It’s probably worth a try.

No, it's not.

The essential problem for Labor has been its flip flopping on key issues that have made it look weak and indecisive; but conversely, those things in which it has sought to act quickly have sometimes come out looking too rushed, ineffective or just flakey.

There is no way that replacing Gillard with a new leader is going to address these core issues. In fact, it will exacerbate them.

Getting through a carbon tax, the mining tax, and finding a workable asylum seeker policy will go a long way to fixing the problems. It's absurd to think that, as this fundamental "fix" starts to happen, the PM should resign.

One of the comments at Mumble blog gets it right, I reckon. If anything, Gillard would improve by sounding tougher, not just with Abbott but with her appalling bunch of sleazy media critics, and those in the public (even those Labor sympathisers who are telling her to go). Here's the comment, from "Balmain":

Mumbles, I keep saying the same thing and you keep saying the opposite...but do you honestly, truly believe that the electorate will tolerate yet another leadership change? I can see Gillard becoming our answer to Thatcher (I hate to draw parallels based on gender..), but I can’t see any other way back for the government. They will not be able to run on their record (once again) if they lose her, and that will make for yet another disastrous campaign. If they hold tight and the country is in good stead come 2013, they will have a much better story to tell than “we’re sorry, we stuffed up and lost our nerve again”. It requires nerves of steel from the ALP, but if they have it surely it’s their best hope? I’m not saying Gillard will be liked, but if she can campaign on successful introduction of major policies by 2013 despite blatant adversity, there will be a begrudging respect factor, surely. I have noticed that a bit of media coverage lately, whilst mostly slating the government, has begun to make frequent mention of her incredible stoicism in the face of all this. It could be starting already…

He's right.

Of course, there are good reasons for fearing the Australian economy, which virtually every economist (save perhaps for the dropkick Sinclair Davidson - hey, he's called me much ruder names at his own blog) would agree has not been fundamentally mismanaged by this Labor government, will soon go through another set of trying times if there is another international financial crisis, and Labor will unfairly wear the blame for this. But this is the fate possibly awaiting any Labor leader, new or old, and replacing Gillard is not going to help that.

UPDATE: This post makes me sound like a complete convert to Labor and can't find a thing to complain about Gillard. Well, there is pretty strong evidence that she was behind the flip-flopping on what to do about a carbon price under Rudd, but as far as those who want to see one in are concerned, actually getting one through Parliament (and, it would appear, a better one than what Rudd nearly got through) should remedy that. On asylum seekers: well, that's a very difficult one for Labor, and no leader is going to find that a breeze to manage.

But if the Coalition would drop its stupidity on climate change, accept a mining tax is a legitimate thing to pursue, and install Malcolm Turnbull as leader, I would be happy to vote for them again. Otherwise, who knows, I might even vote Labor next time.

My other point about our PM which I made reference to a few days ago is that I honestly think that to improve her image for decisiveness, as well appear better to Asian leaders, she should just marry Tim. Don't make a big song or dance about it: just release one set of photos and do it in the gardens of the Lodge. Make sure Kevin Rudd attends!