factionalism

Chapter 5: Factional plotting

As 2003 drew to a close and following Carr’s ‘generational change’ reforms in his Cabinet, in December some twenty-four NSW Labor MPs comprising the Right’ rival splinter factions - the Terrigals and Trogs met for dinner. They “quietly left the Macquarie Street precinct to dine together across town” at the Southern Italian restaurant, 'al Ponte', at Harbourside, Darling Harbour.

They voiced their anger about Carr’s cabinet reshuffle, his overhaul of the ministries, the blood letting of departmental heads by Carr’s new team (Della Bosca, Knowles, Costa, Egan) and over Carr’s new policies such as his new tax on poker machines , which had attracted outrage from the influential club industry. Both Terrigal chiefs Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi had been denied a ministry. The sense of injustice over Carr’s cronyism and desire for populism fueled a desire for factional vengeance brewed for two years after Carr's March 2003 election win.

[Previous Chapter ]

Chapter 4: Carr’s ‘regeneration’ sowed factional vengeance

For a populist politician, NSW Premier Bob Carr felt a personal necessity to be popular with the people and to ensure this be reflected in the media. Poor performance and public embarrassments by government departments and by his ministers reflected badly on Carr’s leadership credibility in the media and therefore with the ordinary citizen.

Carr’s personal penchant for journalism and media relations evolved into a hypersensitivity about his public image as Premier and his indirect monitoring of Sydney radio broadcaster Alan Jones is well documented. Carr’s autocratic message became clear throughout his Cabinet and right through the NSW public service - that those causing him public and media embarrassment would suffer the consequences. Carr’s autocratic management of the public service had become capricious.

[Next Chapter ] [Previous Chapter ]

Now that people have finally accepted that gender is and should be irrelevant in politics (at least in civilised societies like Australia), we can get down to the agenda and actions of Acting PM Gillard's new leadership team.

De-Rudding seems to be a fast way to work the pollsters to gain quick public relations wins, necessary for any new replacement PM.

On what issues and promises did Rudd Labor win the last election and so comprise unfinished obligations to the Australian electorate? Such are what Labor is responsible and accountable to the electorate for the 'Rudd four year term! But now that this is the Gillard term, is there is a mandate disconnect between the electorate and the government?

Irrespective of Rudd's failings, and we should not understate his leadership in saving Australians from the demise of the GFC; no leader deserves a factional coup d'etat. The process of leadership replacement where a political party can suddenly replace a Prime Minister or a State Premier without electoral involvement is undemocratic. Political parties are elected on the merit of their leader. That merit earns an electoral mandate. If that mandate is not fulfilled, it is for the electorate to judge.

This highlights our dependence on one person to lead the nation. It is an unnecessary risk. It is the Government and specifically a Cabinet team of ministers who should be running the country, not Rudd, not a gang of four, not just Julia Gillard. Running a country is immensely complex. It is a shared responsibility and requires layers of delegation and good governance.

Chapter 1: The Rise of NSW Labor Right.

...and with those prophetic words on 3rd December 2009, the next day New South Wales’ second puppet premier Nathan Rees bowed from the public limelight.

[Next Chapter ]