Love's Labors Lost

Things are looking grim for Kevin Rudd and for the Australian Labor Party. They are facing near-certain defeat at the polls on Saturday, and probable annihilation.

And this opinion-piece in the Sydney Morning Herald is just one piece in the puzzle as to how far Labor has fallen. Under the heading No going back when it's over, Melbourne barrister Rachel Doyle SC writes (with our emphasis added):

In 2010, I ended the longest and most significant relationship of my life. We got together when I was in my early 20s and were together for over 17 years. Ending it was the hardest thing I've ever had to do.
The worst part was - he didn't even notice when I left. Sure, we had both emotionally checked out years earlier, but I thought that when I finally walked, it would at least engender a reaction. I'd been trying to get him to pay attention to me for a long time: picking fights, flirting with others and issuing spectacular ultimatums about what he would have to do to keep me. But when I left: nothing. Not a flicker.

Of course, relationships change. I didn't expect him to stay the same forever. But in the end, he just changed so much I didn't know who he was any more.

By 2009, he had become restless and fickle. First he'd want one thing, then another. He was skittish. A screw-up. He was hanging out with people I barely knew. By 2010, he had started to let down his friends, was caught out telling lies and breaking promises. I just couldn't trust him any more. On rare occasions, there were flashes of the brilliant, principled person he used to be. But it would fade away rapidly to nothing. He contradicted me. Then he started contradicting himself. Ultimately, he became vain, petty and cruel.
He hadn't acknowledged me or my needs for years. That I could take. But it was when he stopped caring about the children that I knew I couldn't stay. He blamed them for things. He punished and belittled them. And that, I could not ignore.
In the end, I didn't even tell him I was leaving. It was cowardly. But it was obvious nothing could bring back the person I used to know. So, a couple of years ago, I just walked out without saying where I was going or why. A small part of me thought (vainly) that when I walked, it might be a wake-up call and he would come crawling back. He never did.
Recently, he got back together with an old flame. Someone he was with between 2007 and 2010. After a very public reconciliation and much flaunting of their rekindled love for one another, the relationship already seems to be on the rocks. Me ? I haven't found anyone else. I doubt I ever will. Now when I see glimpses of him in the distance, it's been so long the hurt barely registers. I don't know him any more. I certainly don't know what he stands for, and I can't believe a word he says.
His name? The Australian Labor Party.
I joined Labor in 1993. I was a committed member, although I wasn't part of a faction or a branch. I handed out how-to-vote cards, I made donations. I attended fund-raisers. I identified with the party. I promoted and publicised its tenets. I admired many of its leadership group.
By the middle of 2010, I resolved to let my membership lapse. But I thought that despite our relationship being over, we might stay friends.
As Josh Bornstein wrote on The Age's Comment pages a month ago (''No Moral Limits to What Rudd Will Do to Win''): ''Do I grimace and turn the other way? … I cannot stomach voting for a government that treats other human beings in this way. A line has been crossed.''
Josh was writing about Iranian refugee Shayan Badraie. For me, the final straw was the heartbreaking photos of the orphan, Seena Aqhlaqi Sheikhdost. His photo was published widely in February 2011, while debate raged in relation to whether he would be permitted to attend the funeral of his family members in Sydney or remain in detention on Christmas Island. When I saw those photos, I knew the Rubicon had been crossed.
Asylum seeker policy is complex. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But one truth is clear and unassailable. There is no acceptable reason for imprisoning (or ''detaining'' in the language of both major political parties) children who have done nothing more than step onto a rickety boat because their parents told them to, or because relatives literally carried them aboard. None of these children has sought or caused the situation that maroons them on our shores.
I do not need a psychologist to tell me that imprisoning a child for any period of time is very likely to cause irreparable gaps in their education, physical and psychological development and do untold harm to their emotional health.
On June 16 The Age reported that Department of Immigration statistics confirmed 1852 children were still being held in immigration detention on Manus Island, Christmas Island and elsewhere, despite the government's pledge most would be out by June 2012.
After Labor and I split up, I thought I would always vote for the party I had loved for so long. Now, not only can I no longer bear to have the ALP membership card in my wallet, but I cannot even vote for them on Saturday.
Some people stay together for the sake of the children. I've ended it for the children.

If Rudd and his fellow Labor top-rankers aren't deeply troubled by Ms Doyle's opinion-piece, they most certainly should be. Because this story is not unique. Over the weekend a bus driver and union member told us that he was voting for the Coalition for the first time ever because it was the only way to get rid of Rudd; we won't use the adjective he did, but it was not flattering towards the Australian PM!

There are tens of thousands of Rachel Doyles right across Australia, and Labor is going to discover that when the polls close on Saturday evening. Then the ALP will, like its New Zealand counterpart in 2008 and again in 2011, have an opportunity to cut off some of the diseased tissue, and begin a period of rehabilitation and recovery. The NZLP has yet to avail itself of that opportunity; will the ALP do likewise?

Why Labor is losing; and what it means for the NZLP.

We were out and about yesterday, after our business meetings ended.We even met a Liberal Party candidate for one of the local electorates doing some good, old-fashioned street corner campaigning; good luck Kevin!

But we haven't seen hide nor hair of anyone from the Labor Party; they seem to be keeping a low profile. And this opinion-piece from Paul Strangio in the Sydney Morning Herald may help to explain why:

In the near half-century since the dawn of the ''modern'' epoch of Australian politics - a milestone conventionally associated with Gough Whitlam's ascension to the Labor leadership in the late 1960s - Australia has witnessed five changes of federal government (1972, 1975, 1983, 1996 and 2007).
Two of those transitions involved the ALP losing office: Whitlam was defeated in 1975 and Paul Keating's government was beaten in 1996. When compared with those occasions, a notable difference about the mood in 2013 is the seeming lack of passion among Labor partisans as they contemplate the likely demise of the Rudd government.
Labor has traditionally been the party capable of stirring followers to emotional pitch, and those passions have commonly been intense when the ALP is bracing itself against defeat. It has been a catalyst for party faithful to metaphorically mount the barricades.

1975, of course, had its own exceptional circumstances, with Labor partisans animated by a potent mixture of rage at Whitlam's dismissal by governor-general Sir John Kerr, and adoration of their cruelly felled prime minister. Whitlam's rallies during the campaign were even more charged and messianic than the exultant ''It's Time'' campaign meetings of 1972. Such was the fervency of the Labor crowds that the Whitlam entourage was seduced into believing that the party might defy expectations and prevail at the ballot box.
Passions were more subdued in 1996. Labor had expended much of its emotional energy three years earlier rallying behind Keating as he fended off the challenge of John Hewson and his fundamentalist free-market manifesto, ''Fightback''. There was little hope of another salvation in 1996 and the dominant mood among Labor followers was one of sombre foreboding that matched the demeanour of the elegiac Keating. Yet the ''true believers'' still drew inspiration from Keating's ''big picture'' and felt sick at heart that the public was poised to spurn his vision in favour of the provincialism of John Howard's promise of a ''comfortable and relaxed'' Australia.
By contrast, in 2013 Labor faithful appear devoid of emotion - dare I suggest there is even a smidge of indifference about what is coming. Yes, there is apprehension at the spectre of a Tony Abbott-led Coalition government and spasms of anger at the anti-Labor assault of the News Ltd press, but the fate of the Rudd government is failing to generate much anguish.
Why the dearth of passion? Part of the answer is that the leadership civil war of the past three years has left the ALP emotionally wrung out. I suspect some Labor loyalists remain numb at the pitiless internal destabilisation and ultimate cutting down of Australia's first female prime minister, Julia Gillard.
Furthermore, as the campaign has progressed, it has become evident that by not daring to speak Gillard's name, Labor's re-election pitch has been left with a significant hole. Notwithstanding the flaws of her incumbency, Gillard established a reform record that felt like it was worth fighting for - most notably, the disability insurance scheme and education funding reform. Yet, intent on erasing Gillard's prime ministership from public consciousness, Rudd has appeared reluctant to fully own those measures for Labor. In turn, the campaign has spotlighted how comparatively thin and uninspiring are his reform credentials.

We are relatively recent converts to the niceties of Australian Federal politics. It's only really been since the John Howard years that we have taken more than a passing interest.

But the machinations within the ALP since 2007 have been fascinating to watch, and even moreso at the moment because they are mirrored in the bitterly divided New Zealand Labour Party. 

Labor and Kevin Rudd are headed for a crushing defeat next Saturday if the pundits here and the bookies are to be believed. You can still get a bet on the Coalition; at $1.02 back for your dollar. Labour is paying $11 to be reelected.

Surely, this is going to lead to wholesale change at the top of the ALP. But the question we have is this; what is needed for there to be wholesale change at the top of the New Zealand Labour Party? Will any of Messrs Cunliffe, Robertson or Jones be the catalyst for significant change, or will it just be more of the same?

Quote of the Day - 17 August 2013

Ruth Laugesen has written a lengthy essay in the current Listener on the battle that the Labour Party faces to win hearts, minds and votes; not to mention that the battle that the NZLP has with itself. And within the article, former Labour Party president Mike Williams provides this brutal analysis (with our emphasis added):

Harnessing this energetic, resugent party will take some skill. Former Labour Party president Mike Williams says the emergence of the man-ban proposal is a sign the party organisation has drifted further to the left since the Clark years. He attended the party conference last year and saw many new faces, including "a lot of bloody lunatics who had gone off into the Alliance and are now back ... A lot of the kamikaze wing of the Labour Party has returned."

Under Clark, he says, there was a strong awareness of the socially conservative element of Labour's support from groups such as Psifika voters, who are crucial in the big South Auckland seats. "They were socially conservative on things like gay marriage and that sort of stuff, and Helen was quite careful to take them with her."

Is there still an awareness within Labour that its socially conservative voters need to be bought along? "I don't know. Probably the man ban demonstrates that at least the party council has got out of touch." The party debated a similar idea about a decade ago but rejected it, he says. "It's just not going to fly. It pisses men off, it insults women and it can be lampooned."

Labour found that out very quickly when the man-ban idea was floated in early July, and by the time that David Shearer has faffed about before putting the kibbosh on the idea, for the parliamentary Labour Party at least, the damage had been done. Labour was mercilessly lampooned, and deservedly so.

But rust never sleeps, and the "kamikaze wing of the Labour Party" as Mike Williams described it is active within the party machine. The "kamikaze wing" is also strongly supportive of David Cunliffe's credentials to lead Labour, and like rust, will not sleep until it achieves its aim.

If that doesn't keep David Shearer awake it night, it most certainly should.