Media whore
Labor’s leadership problems are the hot media issue at the moment.
Still, they must be running out of angles, because I was interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald this morning for an article in tomorrow’s paper. Apparently they want a “Young Labor perspective” on the leadership dispute.
I told them that while Young Labor in WA does not have an official position on the matter, I think Kim Beazley’s underhand approach is not helpful. Instead of going behind people’s backs and talking to the media, he should bring up any problems he has with Simon Crean in person.
Asked about Simon Crean’s performance so far, I replied that Simon Crean really hasn’t been given a chance — by his own party. Constant destabilisation by Beazley and others has undermined Labor’s ability to confront the government over their horrendous policies in areas like health and education.
On the issue of Labor’s poor show in the polls, I said that if caucus would stop fighting amongst themselves and instead focus on fighting the government, we’d probably be doing a lot better. I added that the current polls are probably not an accurate reflection of voting intentions.
Finally I was asked to sum up what I thought the Labor party should focus on. I said that unlike the Government, which looks after its mates like Peter Reith and big business, Labor should commit itself to giving a hand to those who most need a hand.
Out of that discussion, I reckon I might get half a sentence in tomorrow’s paper, if that. But I’ll be looking for it…
UPDATE: Look, a badly proof-read version of the article is online now. Ah, those gutless New South Welshmen — “declined to be named”… weak. On the points they raised: I can’t help but wonder whether membership in NSW has plunged because of a crackdown — however half-hearted — on branch stacking; and does anyone really think Beazley will attract Greens to the ALP?
Well done, you made the news! I’m a bit surprised you were so willing to stick up for Crean, though. I think Crean should stay there ahead of Beazley, but I don’t think Crean’s necessarily the best person to have in the job and I reckon you sounded a bit more sympathetic to him than I thought you would’ve!
Than again, I do agree with you that he probably hasn’t been given a ‘fair go’ (I’m statring to sound like John Howard) by the party, and who is there to put in his place right now anyway?
I think the parliamentary leadership should probably have been completely overhauled after the last election, and at least with three years space some new faces would get coverage in the public.
By the way, did you notice that while you said we need to do more criticising the government and less internal bitching, DJ Dan said we did a bit much too much reacting to the govt? Admitedly, there’s a subtle difference in the statements, and I agree with both, but it struck me as looking a little contradictory.
hi, this doesn’t have anything to do with labor, I just wanted to pass on the word about a pretty unique peace-activism site, FacesForPeace.org, where people are posting their photos and antiwar statements in one place, kind of an “online peace rally” (this war may be about over but the conditions for future preemptive, near-unilateral wars are obviously still in place). Hope you can check it out, if you like it please spread the word.
peace,
tim
http://www.facesforpeace.org
Ha – didn’t beazley lose a lot of the vote to greens last election?
He comes off as a man with little conscience in the David Marr book on ther Tampa, more willing to be bounced around by Howard and the polls than take a principled stand – that type of spinelessness (?) won’t bring me or others back to the party any time soon.
There are plenty of Liberal apparatchiks who would love Labor to take more “principled stances”, too.
as we say in QLD, please explain.
In case you haven’t noticed, the entire post-1996 Liberal strategy hinges on Labor adopting “moral stances” that get turned into wedge issues.
Steve, I got the impression it was more a case of Labor *failing* to take any stance on an issue, and being beaten ’round the head with it, with the Liberals either taking Labor to task for their lack of stance, or inventing a stance and saying “Labor’s soft on immigration”, or somesuch crap.
Native title, IVF, apologies, immigration, you name it. However, it is true that on asylum seekers, the Libs did invent a Labor straw man, and pound them on it.
‘I think Kim Beasley’s underhand approach is not helpful.’
Tut, tut! Perhaps he is simply following the manual of a previous Labor man who ‘retired’ to the back-bench, to get right behind his leader. You remember that warm, fuzzy fellow, when nasty Howard wasn’t around playing wedge politics like the present, eh scumbags! Ah yes, a time when we had harmonious relations with our Asian neighbours. You know, when we allowed some of them to kill East Timorese, and the worst we could say about some others was ‘recalcitrant’ before apologising profusely. No blood on the hands with messy political trade-offs for us then. Just peace on earth and good-will to all women, unionists, aboriginals, gays and any other sectional interest group we could slice off.
Ah, the good old days viewed through our all-seeing, pink coloured glasses! Now all is doom and gloom with the Dark Lord holdig sway in the Lodge and no Gandalf to show us the way. If only the Green elves would help us.
Beazely’s article was blown out of proportion. I read it exactly the way he said it was supposed to read – as a criticism of John Howard’s Leadership, not Simon Crean’s. It’s only Crean’s hypersenstivity that has taken this ridiculous issue as far as it has. Beazely may still have aspirations, but he’d be mad to put his head on the block while Howard is still kicking around.