The last few weeks have reminded that in recent years something rather unpleasant has entered politics.
9/11 and the War on Terror didn’t mark the start of Labor’s problems, it marked the temporary suspension, for about five or six years, of the Coalition’s.
The problem for Fraser is not that the Liberals are moving to the right as such but that there is no real basis for them doing so.
What’s worse, earning a trade out of human misery or making politics out of it?
Before a sunrise, there has to be a sunset.
In effect the US government is putting an economic gun to the head of the other major economic powers and doing to the rest of the world what the major US financial institutions did to it.
If the Liberals’ problems are only about Howard being in charge, now that he has gone, their problems should be over, right?
Howard is right in saying that Labor is a friend to terrorism is not part of his campaign. The question is, why not?
The danger with McClelland’s speech was that it momentarily revealed Labor’s core weakness. Labor is a party that has lost its historic role and its basis for representing the interests of a significant section of the electorate. Adrift from a real social base, its policies had reflected more the moral positions of a group of individuals like the Australian Democrats than that of a party of government. That was the truth that was glimpsed last election with Latham’s forestry stance and came back again on Monday night.
Tactically, Rob McClelland’s proposal to oppose the death penalty for the Bali bombers would have to be the worst thing to have come from Labor’s campaign all year. It was so off-message that reports Rudd did not know the content of the speech could be credible.