Serious thing rolling

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 8th, 2017 at 05:34 pm

Senator Andrew Bartlweet ponders media treatment of Kim Beazley:

There’s lots of fluttering in the media at the moment about whether or not Kim Beazley’s leadership of the ALP is safe. There are some posts on a few of the Australian political blogs that are fairly dismissive about the substance of the story. Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy says it is “purest waffle”.

Well, that should reassure big Kim. Speaking of pure waffle:

A defiant Kim Beazley says he is the best campaigner federal Labor has …

As Mr Beazley faces a difficult final parliamentary fortnight of the year, with critics intent on destabilisation, he told The Age that the five weeks of the election campaign was the “time that really counts as a leader” and was “50 per cent of your task”.

“That is when you’ve got to sustain credibility as an alternative prime minister. There’s nobody in our show who can beat me at that.”

There is, however, someone in the other show who has beaten him twice. Hint: he’s also beaten Paul Keating. And Mark Latham.

Mr Beazley defended failing to reshuffle his front bench and promote Peter Garrett, saying the use of Mr Garrett was the real issue people spoke about — and he was already being used extensively.

“If you put him in a single portfolio … that’s what he sticks in. But we can use Peter Garrett in climate change issues, on nuclear issues, on labour market issues — he’s got a very high profile with the ‘tradies’. We can use him in economic portfolio-type areas where a bit of specialised attention is needed. And we can use him in community politics.”

Yes; Garrett has become wonderfully flexible since abandoning his previous beliefs.

Mr Beazley also explained his gaffe in mixing up Rove McManus and Karl Rove by saying he had been “focusing on what I wanted to say about a relationship and a love affair which I find inspirational”. As well, he had been following the American election.

How do you know when Kim Beazley is chewing gum? He stops walking.

Despite what has been going on, Mr Beazley insisted there was “substantial unity of purpose” in the party. He said the usual argument about product differentiation had been answered emphatically. “We’ve now gone poles apart from (the Coalition) on key issues like the environment, global warming, nuclear power, industrial relations … “

As an issue, the environment cost the ALP votes in 2004. Global warming is a joke. Australians are increasingly receptive to the idea of nuclear power. Unemployment is at a 30-year low.

People were not asking any more what Labor stood for but saying “stick to your guns”.

Please do.

A Beazley critic said yesterday: “I think Beazley is in a lot of trouble. This is a very serious thing rolling out.”

Posted by Tim B. on 11/25/2006 at 02:31 AM
    1. Labor stands for preference deals with the Greens.  Appropriate friends for the political wilderness…

      Posted by anthony_r on 2006 11 25 at 02:48 AM • permalink


    1. Bartlweet.

      I notice it’s still like that on your blogroll. And it still cracks me up.

      MagroK’s living legacy.


      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 11 25 at 02:54 AM • permalink


    1. I’ll bet Kimbo hasn’t been described as a very serious thing before, rolling or otherwise.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 11 25 at 02:55 AM • permalink


    1. Serious thing rolling? Yes, if I was a serious lefter I would lay down beneath the steamroller that’s killing people like Beasley.  The tide has turned, People are saying No-No to PeeCee

      Posted by mareeS on 2006 11 25 at 03:03 AM • permalink


    1. Is Pixie Rudd is getting ready to pounce?

      Will Ms Gillard also have a go?

      Who else is there?

      And love that Beazley quote – Garrett is good with the “tradies”

      Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 11 25 at 03:03 AM • permalink


    1. People were not asking any more what Labor stood for…

      Yessiree – they’ve all figured out the answer to the burning question of “why bother”.

      Notice too, that Kimmy uses the past tense “stood for”.

      …  but saying “stick to your guns”

      Ah, that would be the guns with no ammunition, right?

      Kimmy thinks that 50% of the job of the leader of the country goes into 5 wks of election campaigning?  That’s a real worry:  wonder what he would plan on doing for the following 3 years.  Not a lot, it would seem.

      Posted by Ck on 2006 11 25 at 03:05 AM • permalink


    1. PS – Anybody ever noticed how much Peter Costello looks like Kim Beazley snr?

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 11 25 at 03:08 AM • permalink


    1. But we can use Peter Garrett in climate change issues, on nuclear issues, on labour market issues — he’s got a very high profile with the ‘tradies’. We can use him in economic portfolio-type areas

      What? Labour market issues? Since when? Economic portfolio? His solution is to give back what we have, some economist. He was in a rock band for fucksakes, how this resume makes him qualified for these positions is beyond me.

      Maybe Beazer meant ‘roadies’ and not ‘tradies’.

      Posted by Nic on 2006 11 25 at 03:25 AM • permalink


    1. PS – Anybody ever noticed how much Peter Costello looks like Kim Beazley snr?

      I dare Costello to say to Beazley ‘who’s your daddy now’?

      Posted by Nic on 2006 11 25 at 03:26 AM • permalink


    1. John Howard should hold a referendum on nuclear power at the next election. Not only would the ALP tear itself apart over the issue, but he just needs to achieve a majority in one state to build a nuke power station and with appropriate subsidies give that state much cheaper electricity. All issues are ultimately pocketbook issues.

      This issue could lock Labour out of power for a generation.

      Posted by phil_b on 2006 11 25 at 04:00 AM • permalink


    1. This issue could lock Labour out of power for a generation.

      There’s a glorious pun in there somewhere.

      Posted by Kobaal on 2006 11 25 at 04:40 AM • permalink


    1. So much existential angst. Labour should throw off the cruel shackles of prose and set it all to music.

      Posted by RexW on 2006 11 25 at 05:29 AM • permalink


    1. But we can use Peter Garrett

      I reckon he’d make a pretty good pipe cleaner.

      Posted by kae on 2006 11 25 at 05:59 AM • permalink


    1. #10 – Firstly, I think referenda are only for changing the constitution and any national referendum would need a majority of states and of voters to succeed. I don’t think one state support would be enough.

      Secondly, I don’t know if a single station would result in energy cost savings – the Switkowski report seemed to say that we’d need at least 15-20 for the industry to be viable. And subsidies are anathema.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 11 25 at 06:18 AM • permalink


    1. #14 Ian, I agree — a “double majority” is required. As well, in a case where a particular state is affected by the outcome a majority in that state is also required (so-called “triple majority”).
      However, I’m not sure that a referendum would be needed anyway as I can’t see how a nuclear power station is precluded by the Constitution.
      No doubt some lawyer will prove me wrong.
      But just because Beattie calls for a referendum on something doesn’t mean that a referendum is required or possible.

      Posted by Skeeter on 2006 11 25 at 07:13 AM • permalink


    1. Oh, please, please ALP, keep Bomber as leader into the next election.
      He is a genuinely nice bloke, affable, friendly, well educated and despite the occasional lapse, is a very good public speaker.

      He also doesn’t have a snowflake in Hell’s chance of ever being the next PM.

      The SWAT Womble Rudd and the screeching woodpecker Gillard can fight over the carcase later.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 11 25 at 07:37 AM • permalink


    1. Oh, please, please ALP, keep Bomber as leader into the next election

      I think he’s the most electable leader they have. And the most credible. Much as I would like to see the hatchet faced  strong  ideologically disabled determined Gillard have a go – just for the sport.  Even more frightening than Latham I think.

      There’s always the danger that she might fluke a win, and we’d be stuck with her for a while.

      Posted by PeterTB on 2006 11 25 at 08:23 AM • permalink


    1. #14 – Nuclear power isn’t viable here without some Kyoto-style form of subsidy.  We have too much cheap coal and gas.

      Posted by slammer on 2006 11 25 at 08:51 AM • permalink


    1. A defiant Kim Beazley says he is the best campaigner federal Labor has …

      And two generations of Liberal voters agree…!

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 25 at 04:45 PM • permalink


    1. There is a precedent for a nuclear power referendum/plebicite. Tasmania held one on which of 2 hydroelectric dams to build.

      Posted by phil_b on 2006 11 25 at 07:32 PM • permalink


    1. Yeah Bomber was guest of honour on Inciters and in childlike manner refused to discuss his party politics only Victorian -winners are grinners folks.
      He worked himself up enough to fake a threatening tone towards the P.M. “John, when you’re in a hole, stop DIGGING”.
      Unfortunately, he insists on adding “BIG TIME” to many of his comments which only succeeds in diminishing their importance and making him look foolish. Red Bazza’s
      other “guests” were George (lantern jaw) Monologue, ABC flibbertygabber Ginnie Troll
      and the Bolta, looking forlornly isolated in the dark corner as is ABC’s want.

      Posted by crash on 2006 11 26 at 09:12 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.