I warm to you as a person and politician. Really, I do. I like that you like Bonhoeffer. I like that your face is round and that you smile. I like the way you talk to the camera and that you are in control of your pitch and pronunciation. I had high hopes for you as prime minister. I thought your apology to the stolen generations was thorough and superb.
I was disappointed when the greatest moral issue for our time became not so important to you. I was mad, but I probably would have gotten over it in time for the next election - especially if you had tried again.
I, like most of Australia, was cross with the way you were deposed by Julia Gillard and your own party. I thought it was premature. But that's the way our system works. We didn't elect you. We elected your party and they elected you. Then they un-elected you.
I was cross and I've never developed any affection for Julia. I understand that you've lost a lot of face through all that's happened and that must suck. You feel hurt. You think you've been wronged. Naturally you want justice. You want your old job back.
Kevin, I feel for you. I like you. I'm on your side.
But I don't think you should be prime minister. You colleagues all seem to agree that you are not a very nice person to work with. JG says that when you were PM she did all of the work. Many say that you are not a team player and seem unable to think beyond yourself. Others say that you were erratic and angry.
Have you considered that you might have a narcisstic personality disorder?
Follow that link, read the page (or better still, get your friends/family/acquaintances to read the page) and have a good, long, think.
Yours in democracy,
Simone R.
"I was disappointed when the greatest moral issue for our time became not so important to you. I was mad, but I probably would have gotten over it in time for the next election" - What do you mean?? What is the 'greatest moral issue for our time'??
ReplyDelete"I was disappointed when the greatest moral issue for our time became not so important to you. I was mad, but I probably would have gotten over it in time for the next election" - What do you mean?? What is the 'greatest moral issue for our time'??
ReplyDeleteclimate change.
DeleteHave to disagree there. human-caused climate change is still up for grabs until their models can do a better job of predicting long term trends than is the case at present. And most of the deaths related to climate change are hypothetical and in the future.
DeleteWe have wars, a widescale refugee problem, widescale corruption and tyranny, abortion, and what amounts to genocide against Christians and Muslim minorities in Arabia and parts of Africa by Muslim majorities - all of these kill large numbers of people and blight the lives of others that actually exist now. Add in the effects of the sexual revolution that is complicit in the feminization of poverty in the West, and bad outcomes for the (roughly half) of children growing up in non-nuclear family environments - which blights the lives of a large swathe of people, and there's a lot of serious moral issues around. If one sees unbelief as a moral issue that generates all other moral problems then it would have to come first.
Climate change *might* get in the top five once it can demonstrate consistent predictive power. But I doubt it'll ever be the greatest moral issue (even putting aside the issue of unbelief).
KR said climate change was the great moral challenge. I'm quoting him.
DeleteI was disappointed that he was so easily swayed by popular opinion.
DeleteAh, I get the argument. I agree then, on both counts.
DeleteYep. I'm with you on this.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about this:
ReplyDeleteYou colleagues all seem to agree that you are not a very nice person to work with. JG says that when you were PM she did all of the work. Many say that you are not a team player and seem unable to think beyond yourself. Others say that you were erratic and angry.
Why would you take the word of Rudd's opponents as trustworthy? This is Aussie politics, and politics within the modern Australian labour party at that - they certainly don't give their public statements under oath, and they are very hard men and women. Rudd might be all that they say, but I'll take their claims with several grains of salt. It could be just as easily a sign of the passion of the factions to keep their power over the federal party.
It's not impossible for Rudd to be all they claim as PM and also a great foreign minister, but his performance in that job does make their assertions a little less plausible IMO. For Canada's and Sweden's foreign ministers to publicly support him when he resigns (and so slightly upset the Australian government they still have to work with) would be unusual if he was as angry and erratic in their experience as is being claimed.
And you seem to be playing 'this is democracy' card in a very one-sided way. If what happened to Rudd is democracy in action, then him seeking the PM's job for any and all reasons is democracy as well. The polls seem to suggest that most labor voters, and most Australians, want Rudd over Gillard by a very large majority - should that also factor in the democratic argument?
I'm also not sure that it's as simple as 'we elected your party and they elected you'. For many Australians, they elect their federal member as their way of trying to ensure the PM of their choice. In many ways Labor was voted in originally on the back of Rudd's public profile - if a different leader had been there the outcome would have possibly been quite different (hence why Labor is now a minority government). That's one reason why Aussies don't like the PM being ousted by the parliamentary members however legal that is.
Technically we don't even vote a political party into power. We vote our local member to parliament. If that member, the day after the election, quit one political party in order to join another and get a ministry out of the deal, that too would be democracy, and entirely legit. But I think most Aussies would be unhappy, except in the rare cases where they were voting for that member for their local profile and not their party membership.
Rudd may be a pain to work for, and might have real weaknesses. But he was (and is) the people's choice for good or ill. In a democracy, even a parliamentary one, that should be an important factor that weighs more heavily than the preference of factions or even parliamentary members. They can ignore that, but they need to realize that that almost guarantees they'll be in opposition come next election.
Hi Mark,
DeleteI know the technicalities of our system.
For the last 18 months I've been the one saying that you can't trust what Rudd's opponents say about him. It was a faction thing etc etc.
But having seen someone with a narcissistic personality disorder operate and having watched the desperation of those around him, it makes sense that that's what's going on in the labor party. Gillard, Swan et al would rather be in opposition than have to deal with Rudd again.
More later.
Yes, that's not an unreasonable position. If he is all they say, then the right thing to do is not allow him to be PM again and (most likely) end up in opposition. That's a principled decision (even if only enlightened self-interest, but it could be better than that) that deals with the mistake of him getting the top spot in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBut it could be the other way as well. I do think that the Labour party has form in this area, and would easily stoop to exaggerating Rudd's flaws if they really hated him on other grounds (and bypassing the faction system in the choice of ministers would be enough to do that, I think).
So, in my mind, let the Parliamentary party sort it out. They'll most likely not elect him as the next PM. And they'll most likely be in opposition as a result. And that'll be the case whether the decision was right or wrong. Democracy doesn't guarantee we get good government or that good decisions are rewarded. But most of us prefer that to government not being accountable to the people ruled.