@dadpad,
First of all, I agree with the Greens that the CPRS was a seriously flawed scheme which wouldn't have achieved nearly enough . However (under Labor) it was the
only scheme we were going to have, so I am just as dismayed as the next person that this "critical challenge of our time" was conveniently put on the backburner, for the sake of an uncontroversial election campaign.
Rudd was always fully aware of the problem of gaining a senate majority vote on the scheme with the current senate. How could he not be? It was always going to be tough. What could he have done differently? For starters, far clearer, more easily understood information on the scheme could have lead to greater community understanding on the issue of climate change .. which could have applied far greater pressure on the opposition to take the issue far more seriously, in my opinion. As well, instead of treating the Greens as "the enemy" at every turn & a
threat to Labor, he should
worked with the Greens, in an effort to gain their support, not side-lining them at every turn.
They should have been seen & treated as natural allies on this issue, not the enemy. (The only reason that Steven Fielding
ever got a foot-hold in the senate in the first place, with such a poor initial vote, was Labor's allocation of votes to him to him over the Greens, under our preferential system. Incredibly stupid. And now he is a thorn in their side in the Senate, on this and other important reform issues. )
Quote:Is the failure to get legislation through the senate a failure of a political leader?
It is not as though this senate will be a permanent fixture. If an issue is important enough (& I believe it is the most important issue we face, as do many other people) a political leader does not pragmatically put it in the "too hard basket". A political leader with vision & real commitment on this issue (as he led as all to believe he was) would have fought & argued vigorously for what he believed was the right outcome. This is why every commentator from Crikey!, Shaun Carney in the AGE today, Malcolm Turnball, say nothing of (apparently) members of his own caucus, etc, etc, have been left stunned by this decision. It looks like a big sell-out. What exactly are voters to make of what Labor stands for now?
Rudd's failure, as I see it, is to be too much of the autocrat, a "one man show" (unlike most previous Labor leaders). Too often the ALP ends up with
his (very pragmatic) position as policy, arrived at, apparently, with very little consultation with those Labor would normally consult with. If he was some paragon of political wisdom, then his style of leadership might be more forgivable. But he simply isn't. On so many important policy areas. During the early days of this government's term of office, we were led to believe that this softly softly, "don't rock the boat" approach was simply so Labor could establish itself in government. That the "real reforms" we expected from Labor would come in the second term. Well, the second term is looking even
more wishy-washy than the first!