“If changing the f****** leader would change f****** government policy to support the f****** 99% instead of the f****** 1% then we’d be f****** interested in this f****** soap opera!”
This tongue-in-cheek Facebook status that I posted on February 21 ended up sparking a bit of political discussion.
It expressed what a lot of ordinary people were thinking as round two of Kevin Rudd versus Julia Gillard came to a head.
But is there a significant political difference between the two, apart from which of the two might have a better chance against Tony Abbott’s Liberal-National coalition in the next election?
Some people, who fear a right-wing blitzkrieg should Abbott become prime minister, will say that is the only difference that counts.
But if there are political differences beyond whether Rudd or Gillard has the best chance against Abbott, it appears that most journalists are not interested in finding out.
Not one of the questions posed by the journalists at Rudd’s press conference in Washington or Gillard’s in Adelaide on February 23 was about their political platforms.
The mainstream journalists have embraced the soap opera lines — some of which they scripted themselves — and they are deliriously spinning their own spin.
Yet at these two press conferences, Rudd and Gillard each claimed a political record and staked out a political platform.
Rudd’s platform
Before Rudd talked about his record he cued the main themes in his campaign.
1. He claimed he was the “best prospect” to “save the country from the ravages of an Abbott government”.
2. He tried to tap into the strong public revulsion of the ALP faction chiefs, the alleged “faceless men”.
3. He also tried to position himself as a critic of the “politics of division” associated with Abbott and the ALP’s internal party feud.
He then claimed credit for Australia’s escape from the global financial crisis: “Remember it’s through that period of government, when I had the privilege of being prime minister, that Australia got through the global financial crisis without going into recession and without generating mass unemployment.
“A single achievement among all the major developed economies. And not only that, but we emerged with among the lowest debt and lowest deficit rates of all the developed countries in the world.”
All the work of KRudd? Not true. Every developed government bailed out banks and tried to stimulate the economy when the financial crisis struck — and many are now facing debt crises as a reward.
But Australia, “escaped” this mainly because it was a major supplier of raw materials to China and other industrialising countries in Asia.
Rudd then summed up the rest of his record. He claimed he had delivered “massive new investment in education”, a “massive new investment” in the public health and hospital system, had launched the National Broadband Network, had dealt with the “challenges of climate change” (well, he talked a lot about it), and made an “apology to the first Australians” (though Aboriginal people are saying: You said sorry, and then?)
Finally, Rudd set out his program of action should he win the leadership spill.
First among these was to restore “business confidence”. He said: “Business generates jobs. It’s fundamental that there is confidence in the business community to invest and to continue to create jobs. That is critical."
He went on to raise some platitudes about supporting small business. But the political implication is clear: A Rudd Labor government will help the corporations make big profits and the rest of us will have to hope for the fabled trickle down. Rudd won’t challenge Labor’s corporate profits-first policy.
Rudd also said: “A big policy challenge for the future is manufacturing. I have said before, five years ago when I first contested the leadership of the Australian Labor Party, that I never wanted to be prime minister of a country which didn’t make things any more — that remains my enduring passion.
“I do not share the view that manufacturing is somehow old fashioned and belongs to the old economy. It’s never been my view. We have to be smarter about manufacturing, but can I say loud and clear, I believe fundamentally in the importance of a strong Australian industry for the future and as a result a strong industry policy for the future as well.”
The only concrete measure he mentioned was to restore the axed Green Car Fund — a $500 million handout to car companies. Rudd may expect large claps from the car company bosses and the union bureaucrats who tail behind them.
Then he added a few more vague promises.
• A continuation of health reform because Gillard had “squibbed on some of the hard decisions”. But he gave no detail of what this means.
• The reinstatement of his policy, axed by Gillard, to “halve the HECS fees of maths and science students going to universities” and halve them again if they pursue a career in these areas.
• An emphasis on teaching Asian languages.
• To reform the ALP to make it a party that is “not governed by the faceless men”.
Rudd went into rhetorical overdrive about the “faceless men” of the ALP, saying “the future government of Australia is not about the power of factions, it’s about people’s power”. But he was vague on detail about what he would do. And “people’s power”? By rights, an egotistical autocrat like Rudd who has shown no respect for his own party policy or Labor’s rank-and-file members, let alone the 99%, should have choked on those words.
Gillard’s case
Gillard laid out her case for staying on as prime minister at an Adelaide press conference.
First, she too sought to tap public aversion to the infighting, promising that if she lost the vote on Monday she would go to the backbench and “renounce any further claims to the leadership”.
She pointedly asked Rudd to make the same commitment, pointing to how he had undermined her leadership.
Then Gillard claimed credit for:
• The “carbon tax” and gradual introduction of a carbon emissions trading scheme.
• The Mineral Resource Rent Tax (of course, she didn’t mention the estimated $100 billion in potential taxes forgone because of her deal with the biggest mining companies.)
• The health reform agreement with the states.
• The deal with Telstra to get the national broadband network going.
• Education reforms (which teachers and education experts say will set back education in schools).
• Tax cuts for low-income workers.
• Plans to deliver a budget surplus in 2012-2013.
Gillard’s promises for future action included:
• “Work flowing from” the Gonski review into school funding. She was careful not to say she would implement its findings, which urged a major increase in school funding based on student need. Federal government funding to rich private schools rose by 82% from 2001 to 2008/09.
• Giving school principals more power, including the right to hire and fire teachers — an unprecedented measure that teachers' unions oppose.
• A vague promise to preserve a “diversified economy”.
• Unspecified promises to help people with disabilities and “older Australians”.
Finally, Gillard took on Rudd’s argument that only he could prevent Abbott winning the next election.
She said: “Now I note that Kevin Rudd in his media statements yesterday and today has very consistently referred to the need to defeat Tony Abbott at the next election.
“I want to be clear about this too. I believe that we can win the next election and defeat Tony Abbott. I believe I can lead Labor to that victory, provided that the Labor Party unites and we get on with the job.”
So are there any major political differences between Rudd and Gillard?
Not much, beyond a bit of emphasis on this or that policy. Both are firmly committed to a corporate profits-first agenda and both seek to assure the non-mining corporations that they will help spread more of the profit from the mining boom to them. The 99% will just have to hope that some benefit trickles down to us.
There is no real vision to tackle the climate change crisis from either of them. There is not a whisper of difference between them on Aboriginal affairs, refugee policy, equal marriage rights or Australia’s involvement in ongoing imperial wars overseas.
I guess my tongue-in-cheek Facebook status holds.
