How politicians behave after losing office is very revealing – do they shoulder responsibility for the defeat or point the finger at others? In their recent memoirs, neither Hillary Clinton nor Kevin Rudd appears willing to accept blame for their losses. Where statesmanship and analysis are required, we have pages of justification and score-settling, which is a disservice to the reader. Could they please get some therapy so they write something insightful? And if you are going to write a book with a high body count, could it at least be entertaining like The Latham Diaries?
First to publish was failed US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton – so unpopular with the voting public that 54% of her core constituency, white women, voted for a misogynist like Donald Trump. But in an interview on ABC TV last week, she blamed the Russians, Julian Assange and FBI Secretary James Comey for the loss, with not a hint of insight into her own contribution.
Last night it was Rudd’s turn, at the launch of his book, Kevin Rudd: Not for the Faint-hearted. Coming in at 600 pages, it takes us from young Kevin’s birth right up to winning the election in 2007 and becoming Prime Minister. But don’t panic – it doesn’t end there! For those of you who want to know about the extraordinary achievements of the Rudd Labor government – he is currently working on volume 2.
Kevin’s journey from a dairy farm in Queensland to the Lodge has been very well-documented; only the die-hard Rudd fans will probably need to read yet another account of how the young boy and his mum spent a few nights sleeping in the car.
The Sydney Writers’ Festival hosted the sell-out event, which was held at the University of Sydney’s Great Hall. Former deputy prime minister Anthony Albanese introduced him – also in the audience was former attorney-general Robert McLelland, former diplomat Dick Woolcott and Rudd’s wife, Therese Rein.
Interviewer Jennifer Hewett, a columnist at The Australian Financial Review, asked Rudd about his failed bid to become Secretary-General of the United Nations. “That didn’t go very well, did it, it felt like 2010 all over again, ” he said, laughing hollowly.
Asked if he had since spoken to Malcolm Turnbull, who voted against Rudd’s candidacy, he replied, “yes I have spoken to Malcolm Turnbull, rather Anglo-Saxon monosyllabically..” (Rudd is famous for his swearing, saying at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit climate that: “Those Chinese fuckers are trying to rat-fuck us.”)
Selling out Rudd was dumb on Turnbull’s part, he added, saying that “not voting for the Australian candidate” didn’t pass the pub test.
After the near-death experience of the 2016 election, which Turnbull won by only one seat, he “felt the breath of the conservatives like Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott breathing down his neck,” Rudd said. “He didn’t want to alienate them, so he wilted like melted jelly in the midday sun.”
It’s no secret that Rudd does not get on with his former treasurer, fellow Queenslander Wayne Swan. In Rudd’s book, he says that former Labor leader Mark Latham appointed Swan as Treasury spokesman as a “joke on the party”.
“He would bequeath Swan to his successor as a permanent Achilles heel, entrenched in the position once it had been given to him, simply because Swan’s factional strength would make it impossible to remove him.”
“Wayne,” he said at the launch, “is capable of some pretty deep destabilization”. Breathtaking coming from someone who spent three years back-stabbing Julia Gillard after she succeeded him as Prime Minister in 2010.
We were also treated to one of Kevin’s most annoying characteristics – his faux Dad and Dave-like persona; at one stage last night, doing jazz-hands, he said “there’s a bit of chill-bill in this”. At least he’s stopped saying “fair suck of the sauce bottle.”
Former colleagues from his days working for Queensland Premier Wayne Goss have an old joke: “Rudd is a creature from outer space. The proof? Who but an android would say so often, ‘I am only human.’ “
The issue now, of course, is how many people in the world want to read TWELVE HUNDRED pages on the “Ruddbot” (Thanks Annabel Crabb)? Do we actually need to talk about Kevin or, even worse, hear Kevin talk about himself? Not for the faint-hearted.
Why pay so much attention if the man irritates you?
There is no difference between Margot’s critical comments and the ones that are attributed to Rudd.
I guess all this will improve his sales.
Who’s the more delusional – Rudd or Abbott?
Rudd actually achieved things during his time as PM (the Forgotten Generation apology, removed discrimination for superannuation, aged care, pensions, Medicare etc for same sex couples, launched a premium NBN). He attempted to extract more taxes from the big miners but was foiled by a $20M advertising campaign, the Murdoch press & some nervous ALP MPs…but at least he tried. Ditto with an emissions trading scheme, he tried (& was supported by Turnbull, no less, how easily we forget).
Abbott, on the other hand, can boast no notch on the achievement post. He behaved as though still in Opposition. He ordered Turnbull to bugger up the NBN (executed superbly by our current PM) & was, generally, a dud. Oh I nearly forgot, give Abbott credit where deserved, he made HRH Prince Philip a knight.
Correction: should read ‘Stolen Generation apology’
Agreed and he is acknowledged as saving the Copenhagen Climate conference by his own force of will. I would like to know whether it is true that Gillard and Swan forced him to back down from the CPRS, greatly undermining his cred leading to the decreasing poll numbers, which would make the description of him whiteanting very off the mark.
He cooda-dunna lot more – if he’d been able to keep his nerve and prosecute his case – but he was prone to trying to please the wrong people. I don’t think a patronising, technocrat “Andrew” Martin (Bicentennial Man) necessarily makes for a good leader.
I reckon he would have made a great Foreign Affairs Minister – under Tanner – but that would have meant sheathing his ambitions to the cut of his expertise.
And his Abbottesque bomb-throwing, into his own party – once his time had passed – then quitting parliament after losing the election – didn’t help anyone, least of all him.
…. Why the bloody hell would someone in his position take a call from Cheney’s glove-puppet, Georgie Bush, with a couple of Rupert’s Nazgûl in the same (Kirribilli) house, let alone the next room?
Ken Henry spoke very highly of Rudd’s awareness of the pending disaster of the Global Financial Crisis. He acknowledged that the early actions of the Labor Government, led by Rudd, protected Australia from severe depression. It hit most other countries so hard that some have not yet recovered. The NLP pretends that it didn’t happen.
The standard response from my conservative friends is that Rudd & Swan threw too much money at the GFC.
Apparently, according to these fiscal wizards, the Labor govt only needed to pour HALF the amount into our economy & everything would’ve been hunky-dory. This is perfectly in sync with the Coalition’s stance on the NBN ie: implement a half-arsed remedy while predicting an ideal outcome. Bound to fail. Then parrot that it’s the fault of Labor.
Agree
You clearly haven’t read Hillary’s book. She takes responsibility for the election loss in her preface and also talks about shortcomings in her campaign.
There also is no doubt that the timing of the Comey interventions worked against her.
She also won the popular vote by 3 million.
So it is disappointing to red your account.
Seconding Bob Weiss’ comment. Hillary clearly takes responsibility multiple times. She rightly points out there are a myriad of factors that explain an election result, and she acknowledges her mistakes were amongst them. Like any other reasonable observer – eg. Nate Silver, she points out that Comey’s disgraceful intervention correlated with a pronounced swing against her. When politicians, ex or otherwise, aren’t reductive, let’s not demand that they be so.
Is this some semantic loan of the phrase “take responsibility”, whose definition neither you nor Bob have shared with other Anglophones? Or are you colluding in some sort of epistemological prank?
Rudd is obviously an acquired taste, apparently not for the Syd/ Mel self-styled literati.
He was probably given no choice but to ultimately reply in bitch to people like Swan, Latham – but it is a pity about that all the same.
Others simply compare him to Abbott because of their similar sackings – he is nothing like Abbott, his record is nothing like Abbott’s. Rudd did/ does have convictions, many of which he acted on when PM to his credit, there remain many positives on his score sheet because of this. Abbott is surely more the naysaying, destructively programmed android?
Rudd remains active in what I understand to be internationally esteemed roles, and would have more understanding/ insight on Chinese & Asian matters than any of our current cabinet. Pity they don’t employ that resource, instead of the dumb f..k level of diplomacy conducted by our current foreign minister and PM.
Well said, Wally..
It would be a good idea if Saville critiqued the book (which she obviously hasn’t read), instead of making snide remarks about the author.
Read any of the foreign affairs publications from overseas, and you will find Kevin Rudd is held in very high regard. I despair of this small-minded ‘local’ putdown every time this man has anything to say…truly Ltd News style at it’s worst!!!!!