Paul Kelly could not contain his anti-Rudd thoughts in this article from Tuesday no matter how much the Aus is leaning the ALP way. Headline: 'Fiasco exposes Labor weakness'.
In the words of Dixon Baimbridge, 'You said it, bitch'. I'm amased the on-line headline has not been changed to something softer retrospectively.
More from Kelly in said article: "Labour has now embraced Howards position [on Kyoto] post-2012. That's right, Labor is following Howard on climate change.
... Think about it"
I know i'm quoting after the fact. You don't come to this blog to get live updates. You come here for 3-dimensional truth nuggets. They have to pass through my poltical digestive system before the plop out the other end. I can feel one coming on now. Ohhhh, yeah.
Rudd could have walked both sides of the street on climate change and Kyoto. A week ago Turnbull's supposed leak about debate in the Howard cabinet on the topic of Kyoto was pounced on by the media as showing the divisions in the coalition. This just goes to show how the media are just swallowing Rudd's line on everything to do with climate. Normally debate on topics is welcome. Turbull, as envirominister, is perfectly entitled to suggest that we sign Kyoto just to get some browny points, even if it wont help the climate (which it wont). Howard is will within his rights to knock him back and take a (very important) stand against environmental hocus-pocus symbolism, which is at all times in danger of hijacking the debate and the funding which could be used to get results that work. Cabinets debate things. That's what they are for.
But the media forgot this because they just accept that anything the ALP says on the environment is gospel, well maybe not but they take what Howard says to be straight outta the Necronomicon (one for the nerds).
The media is coming to the Rudd view of what debate should be. That is that Rudd dictates the 'variable certainty' and anyone who diverges from that is morally wrong and must be subjected to public humilation. Even if they say some thing that agrees with the ALP policy line one day, if that policy line later changes, the same rule applied. They are 'out-of-touch' with the 'new leadership' and must repent. It started with McLellan. Who annouced labour party policy only to be 'councelled' that is was wrong. The next victim was Garrett.
The environmental problems for the ALP started when Peter Garrett thought he was entitled to search for consistent set of principles behind ALP environment policy. Garrett is a man of principles, unlike Rudd. He naturally assumed that the same criteria the the ALP uses for signing Kyoto would be applied to signing the next round of Kyoto talks. He failed to grasp the double-think. Garrett failed to see that the Rudd is right to attack Howard for not signing Kyoto, because it shows lack of 'new leadership' in relation to his most honorable friends in China. The Rudd is also right to repudiate that idea, to vary the certainty, for the sake of the Ruddite ascendency. He is Right to copy Howard and refuse to sign the new round of Kyoto talks if China does not sign too.
Garrett should have known. Rudd should have told him. He would have, but he was busy telling him the opposite. Because The Rudd himself does not always know what revalation will alter the 'variable certainty' before it happens. He must wait for inspiration from the policy god Howardi. When Howardi utters the words 'Australian jobs', the Rudd he falls into an econmically-conservative trance, enduring painful policy upheaval which twist his gut-instincts and make him to back-flips . When The Rudd emerges the trance his minions hang off his everyword. He speaks, it shall be so and so, and they publically disembowel themelves in his name.
As so it was that Garrett, not Rudd, dutifully distorted the truth for Rudd, and claimed that the new leadership had been right all along. China's non participation was 'no deal-breaker' and it was also fundamental pre-requisite. The media accepted the new trust and carefully omitted their reports that only hours becuase The Rudd had defended Garrett. He had believed the lie that letting developing nations off the hook in the new round of Kyoto talks would help defeat climate change. Howard had the stronger policy, and Rudd adopted it. It is the same but different. It used to be bad Howard policy. Now it is good Rudd policy.
Only one small sacrifice had to be made for this blessed merging of truths to occur. The ALP cannot consistently attack the government on Kyoto for the rest of the campaign. Of course that does not mean they will not try. The dissenters are easily silenced by refusing to give them interviews and other favours when the Rudd ascension inevitable occurs.
