Labor’s frontbench suddenly looked a whole lot lighter at the end of the last Question Time in the current sittings yesterday. Not only was Kevin Rudd, policy wonk and erstwhile Prime Minister, no longer there (he lasted 55 minutes of Question Time, a gutsy effort), but Lindsay Tanner rose at the end and sprang a shock that came right out of the political blue: he was leaving politics.
That Tanner’s parliamentary career mostly coincided with Labor’s long years of Opposition, bookended by single terms in Government, meant we were deprived of the services of one of the best, smartest and most effective of the current political generation in high office.
Talking to him was like a breath of fresh air, to discover that senior politicians could be rigorous but heterodox thinkers willing to go beyond not merely the standard talking points that are now a critical part of most ministers’ armor, but straitlaced partisan thinking of any kind. It was always telling, I thought, that when he rose in Question Time to deliver his invariably savage deconstructions of a particular Opposition member or policy, he did so reading hand-written notes. Not for him the Departmental Question Time Brief or PPQ brief with some political tweaks added by staff.
Perhaps that’s why Tanner was never guilty of one of the most irritating mannerisms of the Rudd Government, the incessant repetition of whatever catchphrase was currently in vogue, whether “working families” or “tradies” or whatever other cliché had been conjured up in Rudd’s office for mass broadcast.
Tanner’s parting speech, announced in the chamber, elicited rare applause and generous words from all sides.
Rudd’s departure — in altogether different circumstances in the Prime Minister’s Courtyard earlier — was one of the more remarkable moments in political life. I noticed a few people on Twitter having a go at Rudd as he struggled to get his words out, but I can’t see how anyone could have watched those long, long silences and not felt for him, regardless of what they thought of the man’s contribution to political life.
There seems to be a golden rule of Australian politics now, that politicians are at their best when facing or experiencing defeat. Under challenge, they suddenly and dramatically lift their game. he gold standard is Malcolm Turnbull’s astounding performance as his leadership was assailed by a right-wing putsch, meeting his challengers head on and vowing to fight, apparently against all odds, to head them off.
Even Rudd at his press conference late on Thursday night suddenly found the communications skills that had gone AWOL for most of his Prime Ministership, succinctly summing up his case for keeping the leadership and vowing to fight.
In defeat, like Malcolm Fraser — another Prime Minister considered cold and stoic — he succumbed to public tears. Perhaps, to indulge in the sort of Citizen Kane-like psychobabble hunt for a Rudd “Rosebud” that is lately fashionable, it was all that emotion repressed while in office that could suddenly be released. Or maybe, like a lot of us, he just has trouble keeping the tears away when something wrenching and deeply wounding happens to him.
Some suggest we shouldn’t feel sympathy for vanquished leaders, as though their pain is reward for their being ambitious. And it’s true that you don’t get to be Prime Minister without being extraordinarily, frighteningly ambitious. But ambition doesn’t abrogate the basic rule that there are few if any Federal MPs who aren’t there for the sole reason that they want to make Australia a better place.
Maybe that’s changing as more State Government-style machine men enter Parliament, but as a rule it still holds, even for those who make it to the very top. Rudd, who could readily idle away his time as a consultant or foreign policy guru given his financial circumstances, is no exception. Losing the best opportunity in the country to make a real difference is deeply wounding to such people and the pain isn’t just because their ambition has been thwarted.
Fortunately Thérèse Rein was there to support Rudd as he threatened to dissolve into tears. Rein has been a class act as the local equivalent of First Lady, especially given she’s continued her own business career while putting her own stamp on the traditional philanthropic duties of her position. Looking at this intelligent, talented, successful and eloquent woman, you can’t help but wonder whether she’d have made a pretty reasonable political leader too.
Still, three-and-a-half years ago it was Beazley’s distress at his loss that caught our attention, as Kevin Rudd snatched away the leadership (and like Rudd, Beazley had a fairly healthy poll position when he was rolled). And who knows when Julia Gillard will find herself trying to hold back her emotions as she confronts the reality of defeat.
It comes to just about all democratic leaders, no matter how successful, sooner or later. The only question is how long it can be delayed.
That’s all well and good Bernard, but when are you going to contribute some balanced commentary? When will you acknowledge the contribution Tony Abbott has made to public life? His achievements under Howard, his potential as PM? Isn’t it time you opened your mind to the possibilities, instead of shedding tears for Kevin Rudd? He is finished. He is gone. He will never be coming back. And for that, we must be grateful.
One cannot help but be sympathetic to any person in pain. However I really struggled to feel this way when watching Mr Rudd. I simply felt that it summed up his complete inability to absorb what had happened around him. In the sand pit of life Kevin, you had just ignored your playmates for too long.
I wish him well.
And Kevin went on and on, listing “achievement” after achievement — never once acknowledging his many failures. His farewell speech was a fraudulent speech, self-pity without self-examination.
it does come to all eventually, (defeat and/or overthrow). But usually it happens when in opposition. (Though, not always). Rudd defeated Beasley in Opposition. Abbott toppled Turnbull in Opposition. Turnbull overthrew Nelson in opposition. Keating did become PM in office, but Hawke knifed his predecessor in opposition. the list goes on and on. The only real potential leader who waited patiently for his colleague to step down without a fight, was Costello, and he got betrayed instead! He never did get that promised top job. The media called him weak for not challenging Howard to a vote. Rudd even said that of Costello when interviewed on Rove (if my memory is working right). Damned if you do and the same if you don’t, it seems.
Despite the hard line of some bloggers, most Aussies do feel a bit sorry for Rudd today, and a lot of ordinary voters are wondering how it all came to this. “He wasn’t that bad”. “This is all a bit harsh: he probably could have still won the next election”. “he did do sorry day”. “He did keep us out of the world depression”. “He had a tough Senate and yet he still got some things done”. That kind of thing. I wonder if this decision will come back to bite Labor at the next election? Or maybe the fickle Aussie voter will be over all this in a couple of weeks and life will continue as normal.
TROY C
The article is about handling defeat and the stress of facing the public under those circumstances. You want to promote Abbott then use another blog thats more suitable to your pursuit. Actually your second comment makes you a perfect fan of Abbotts ala Bernie Banton. Like Abbott you lack the essential human quality to feel for others who are doing it hard. List any meaningful achievement of Abbotts that improved the lot of the general Australian public if it helps your infatuation. It wont take long.