June 27, 2013 | Graham

Rudd redux or reflux?

@annabelcrabb thinks it is “Kevin Redux”, but could it be “Kevin Reflux”.

The only reason for changing from Gillard to Rudd is self-preservation on the part of 57 ALP federal members. That was obvious in Rudd’s acceptance speech.

Here was a man who has spent the last three years undermining the government of Australia, and who has had three years to hone the speech that he was to give when he was successful in wreaking revenge on his usurper, yet what agenda did he have to offer?

While he used the language of “positives” his one strong position was that he was going to stop Tony Abbott from becoming prime minister of Australia.

He couldn’t nominate a single policy difference with his predecessor, neither could he even say when the election will be.

In fact, rather than differentiate himself from his predecessor he tried to embrace her record. And why not? She achieved what he couldn’t, and the Gillard government was really just an extension of the Rudd government.

So her failures are his failures.

Labor makes a big play on the strength of the Australian economy, but they can’t point to any policies they have implemented that contribute to this, with the exception of allegedly steering the country through the GFC.

Yet this, with the exception of the bank guarantee, which did make a contribution, and was a no-brainer, boils down to obscenely expensive school extensions and the bungled pink batts program, and a government deficit now on its way to $300 million.

The real reason the country skated through almost unscathed is the reforms implemented by the Hawke and Howard government’s and characterised by Rudd as “Brutopia”.

Australia survived because it has a robust flexible economy, minimal government interference in business, and a currency which very quickly adjusted to circumstances making our exports attractive. Since their election the Rudd/Gillard government has done its best to blunt, if not erase, most of those advantages.

How will the electorate react to the Rudd resurgence?

Well, the polls suggest Labor will surge, and in some ways that is the best that Tony Abbott could hope for. This will now make people swing their focus away from him and back onto Labor as they contemplate what 9 years of bumbling, self-congratulation and incompetence could do.

We’re still living off the Hawke/Howard legacy, but it won’t last forever.


Posted by Graham at 8:27 am | Comments (7) |
Filed under: Uncategorized


  1. You have a donkey you put a new head on it
    Unfortunately you still have a Donkey.
    Says it all for labor , same losing team
    different captain.
    We need an Election now.And it is time for a
    change. Nobody has said anything about
    Albanese – think it is a pretty dodgy history,
    Member of NSW Socialist Left, his wife former
    Deputy Premier of NSW. So he is up to his neck
    in the muck and corruption of the NSW Labor Party.
    Not Deputy PM material but Rudds Way to get the job.
    It is all about Kevin.

    Comment by RANK FRANK — June 27, 2013 @ 9:23 am

  2. So we have just got rid of the second worst prime minister in history, to replace them with the proven worst. It really would be funny, if not so serious.

    Can all those failing countries really be worse led than Oz, or are we really the lucky country, that can better survive dreadful leaders?

    Comment by Hasbeen — June 27, 2013 @ 9:49 am

  3. Well, Julie Gillard was doing quite well, during the 2010 election, until the leaking started.
    If those leaks had not happened, its London to a brick that Labour would have won the last election by a comfortable margin?
    And since then the Rudd camp reportedly, has used every opportunity to undermine the government?
    Why? Well it has always been all about Rudd? Clearly, he would have effectively destroyed the Labour party, than let anybody else lead or usurp him?
    And now expects to be rewarded for it, by the electorate!
    Some high profile ministers are on the public record saying they would resign before serving under a Rudd government!
    If a motion of no confidence is called, could these same members abstain? Thereby scuttling Rudd’s plans?
    Latest polls are suggesting a 50/50 result and perhaps yet another hung parliament, and all the back room deals that go with it? And indeed, another three years of all the nonsense that are part and parcel of it?
    Lets hope for the country’s sake that the Rudd honeymoon is a very short one, and or that some of the now retiring members, do to Rudd what was done to Gillard in his name?
    We need a change of government, to reverse some of the crazy green initiated decisions of the past three years, and time for the Labour party to divest itself of the problematic personalities, and reform itself; so that once again it becomes the party, with the light on the hill and far more pragmatic policies!
    Alan B. Goulding.

    Comment by Alan B. Goulding — June 27, 2013 @ 10:55 am

  4. Poor Fellow my Country.

    Comment by Caroline Storm — June 27, 2013 @ 11:14 am

  5. The Hawke/Keating/Howard legacy is nothing to aspire to. The minor budget surpluses that were achieved were achieved largely by selling many valuable public assets, and increasing the indebtedness of the private sector, particularly those aspiring to home ownership. Those sales increased the cost of banking, telephone and power supplies to industry and citizens.
    As early as 1998 the then Governor of the Reserve bank (Mr Ian Macfarlane) was advocating much stricter regulation of the financial services sector including banking as were western leaders after the G7 meeting at the end of October 1998.
    Macfarlane wrote or stated that; “More and more people are asking whether the international financial system, as it has operated for most of the 1990s, is basically unstable. By now I think the majority of observers have come to the conclusion that it is…” “The intellectual underpinning of the free market position …The Efficient Markets Hypothesis – is very weak. In all the exchange rate tests of which I am aware, the hypothesis has been contradicted by facts.”
    “We need to devise a system for maximizing the benefits to be gained from international capital while limiting the risks.” “It is simplistic to insist on the totally free movement of capital in all countries and in all circumstances.”
    The failure of Howard and the other western neo-liberal leaders to follow competent advice led to the Global Financial Crisis.
    Please read and understand what is on site at New Economic Perspectives.

    Comment by John Turner — June 27, 2013 @ 11:27 am

  6. I agree with John Turner. Hawke and Keating were a disaster and John Howard should never had given the RBA so much power over our economy, with so little Govt control.

    I will never forgive them selling the Commonwealth Bank as we no longer have any monetary sovereignty.

    Comment by Ross — June 27, 2013 @ 5:18 pm

  7. As for the settling of Boat People in PNG.
    What a desaster and what a shocker for PNG.
    Neo-Colonialism at its worst. And undisclosed cost!
    PapuaNewGuineans are very strong on their culture and
    their land and strong Christians. To force settle
    in their thousands these people will be a desaster
    for all concerned. A violent outcome inevitable.

    ps spent 15yrs in PNG know Manus well ,so have some
    understanding and a deep love for PNG. Its all bad.

    Comment by RANK FRANK — July 22, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.