Pathetic propaganda
With regard to federal pollies’ superannuation, Tim Blair asks:
So where’s the backflip? When Mark Latham first raised the superannuation issue, Howard — as Matt Price reported — promised to analyse Latham’s proposal. Which he’s now done. If he first rejected Latham’s proposal then later agreed with it, well, now we’re talking backflip.
Where’s the backflip? Are you blind, Tim?
Don’t pretend that Howard has always been open to reforming the system. He has consistently defended the status quo against all critics. It’s only when Latham threw in his two bob’s worth that he said he’d think about it, and eventually rolled over. As Matt Price reported elsewhere:
[I]it’s taken Howard 30 years in parliament, including eight as PM and five as treasurer, to come to his senses.
[...]
Only last month, in an interview with The Australian, Howard emphatically ruled out changes to the super scheme.
The speed of yesterday’s flip flop had heads spinning.
Asked why he had ignored repeated written requests by minor parties and independents to slash the scheme, he said the issue had become very sensitive.
“This debate, because of the decision taken by the Opposition, has become the focus so far as public interest in remuneration is concerned and I have decided to take it out of that focus,” he said.
Tim pans the “Sydney Latham Herald” (hyuk hyuk) for calling a spade a spade. What does his own paper say about it?
Why, that Howard’s done a backflip, of course.
John Howard’s decision on Thursday to bend over backwards to try to steal Mark Latham’s policy proposal on reducing superannuation for new politicians and judges is an extraordinary exercise in opportunism. The community views the superannuation entitlements of politicians as a capital-r Rort, but despite being in office for eight years the Prime Minister had not bothered to address it until the Opposition Leader promised he would. So much for Mr Howard calling his Labor opponent “Mr Flip Flop” for his frequent floating and often silent sinking of policy ideas.
Even Howard’s caucus saw it for what it was:
“So much for the Man of Steel,” one participant said yesterday. “Here we are, confronted with a problem in the first week of the parliamentary session in an election year against a new leader. And what does Howard do? He runs away at a million miles an hour.”
Howard’s spent thirty years (eight as Prime Minister) defending the scheme, but suddenly changes his mind when Latham says it’s rotten. The Liberals can see it was a backflip; Howard admits it was driven entirely by politics. Blair, though, tries to come up with technical arguments to avoid facing the bleeding obvious.
Pretty sad, really.
I have a theory that ‘Tim Blair’ is actually a well-crafted blogbot. A genuine human should be able to show something approximating critical thinking skill.
It’s sad to see Howard-lovers like Tim and Piers Akerman deny the existence and/or significance of Howard’s superannuation backflip. Piers Akerman’s performance on yesterday’s Insiders program on the ABC bordered on comical.
“My own paper”? What the hell?
I mean you write for it, not that you own it.
It is dishonest or naive to claim Howard has done a ‘backflip’ on super, any more than accusing the Premier of my State of SA, Mike Rann of doing likewise. The simple truth is, the two majors have had a tacit agreement on the status quo, both federally and locally for years. Spare us the line that one Party can suddenly take the moral high ground, because an opportunistic politician from that Party decides to play to the gallery and ambush the other. It could more likely be described as one rat ratting on all the other rats. It left the PM in exactly the same situation as all the Premiers. Having to admit the agreement was torn up. God forbid that Howard should have been the one to rat on this. Wedge politics, grandstanding dishonesty, political opportunism,etc, etc…..
The thing that amuses me, is how far up market wages creek, Latham is now, without his Party’s comparative wage justice paddle. Remuneration Tribunal determined wages be damned. Vote for the cheapest rat now. My only practical advice to a rat wanting to be King Rat would be, time your ratting to maximum effect on all the other rats. That means ratting in the election campaign. Bit of a giggle for the voter really, listening to some claiming the high moral ground through all of this. Principles be damned, when there’s the smell of rotten cheese about.
Whether Latham has also done a backflip is a separate issue, observa. I don’t know where he stood in the past, so I can’t tell you. However my post makes clear that the minor parties have been on at Howard for ages to change things.
Robert, It was a previous Labor govt that introduced compulsory super for workers and the principle of one rule on super for the rulers and one for the rulers, should have been dealt with then. As well, the issue of overall remuneration, after reducing pollies higher super entitlements down to the new community standard, should have been addressed then. IMO a minister should not be paid less than a Departmental Head.
The majors chose to ignore this problem then and carried on with a tacit agreement to forgo politically unpopular direct salary rises, in favour of the less obvious, back-door method of super. Both majors have defended this policy in govt tacitly by their inaction, irrespective of the chidings or politicking of the minors. There is no high ground for either of them now, albeit the problem has finally been addressed.
You have still not addressed my claim that in kicking in this rotten door(supposedly for one principle), in his haste to play to the gallery, Latham has been prepared to undercut his award, tribunal remuneration as a sop to voters. Do you have any problem with that precedent Robert? As an employer, I must say, I find the precedent rather tantalising.
oops…. rulers and ruled of course
“Compared to the money earned by senior public servants and corporate leaders, Australia’s politicians are underpaid.”
Latham said that in 2000 (http://www.alp.org.au/media/0204/20006841.html). I think that Howard is just as sincere as Latham about the changes. I guess once there was no longer bi-partisan support for the scheme he didn’t have much of a choice. It was a clever move my Latham (or whoever came up with it) but I’m not sure how many tricks like this he has left.
Observa, you’re comparing an MP’s pay with a worker. They are more like executives. Latham’s position is compatible with his position on executive pay — make it transparent by removing hyperinflated super, etc.
Asked why he had ignored repeated written requests by minor parties and independents to slash the scheme, he said the issue had become very sensitive.
Can I conclude from this that Labor has not been a long-time advocate of super reform? If Labor only lately, under Latham, developed an interest in super reform, has Labor not done a flip-flop as well? If the Libs are doing the right thing in seeking super reform should they not be praised?
Surely a new leader is entitled to introduce new policy without his party being accused of flip-flopping?
If the Libs had introduced super reform because they thought it was the right thing, then I would be happy. However, Howard is on record saying he thinks the current system is hunky-dory. He reacted to Latham by changing his policy — it’s not quite the same thing, is it?
I see your point but as long as the right policy – as you see it – has been proprosed, what difference does it make who proposes it?
If Labor pols had thought super reforms justified, surely they have had ample opportunity to introduce them. Or, was Latham merely looking for a good wedge issue in the form of super reform? What indications are there that Latham seriously saw super reform as anything other than a cynical vote getting ploy? Has he argued the case for super reform for some time or was it a totally new policy development? (I really don’t know.)
Flop-flip, flip-flop, is this what our political landscape has degenerated too. I honestly don’t know why Howard uses the term, as I don’t think it was actually galvanising support in the community. Surely, most people are aware that leaders change their mind on issues from time to time, and that Latham was explorative in the past was mostly just inquiring into possible alternatives, which surely any defeated government would consider. Its not as though many voters are going to get Latham’s books and check how consistent he is. Mind you I now think the ‘flip-flop’ term has been contextualised in such a ridiculous riddle of circumstances that it is almost a waste of breathe to use, its totally comic. He almost comes across as ridiculous as Kevin Andrews at the moment, not to mention Alby Schultz’s Wacko Jacko comment, are the Libs losing it?
Doesn’t ANYONE know the real difference between a “backflip” and a “principled acknowledgement that ‘it’s time’ to modify your position?
If you support the person who does it. it’s the latter. If you don’t support him, then how could it be anything but the former?
Latham and Howard have both changed their positions. But let’s not even dream of trying to be a tad objective about anything. As true believers we owe it tom ourselves to fight for the forces of truth and light against those of darkness and injustice. Anyone have a coin, so that we can work out which side is which?
Latham and Howard have both changed their positions. But let’s not even dream of trying to be a tad objective about anything.
No, let’s not. FYI:
I suppose Latham had to be consistent on something, Rob, but why is it that some people only use “flip flop” when their opponents change a position? Ooopps, I forgot. Consistent in politics means always supporting your own side.