Rudd's year of living B-minus
Posted
Barack Obama gave himself a "solid B-plus" last week
when invited by interviewer Oprah Winfrey to mark his own performance
as President of the United States.
It was what they call a broad-ranging interview, which also involved the First Lady and covered domestic policy advances including the White House puppy's recently-acquired ability to give high-fives.
Mr Obama said he would upgrade his mark to A-minus if he were able to get his health care reforms through the US Senate - a result which now seems likely, given the news from the States overnight.
The US President thus concedes that success is a brutal measure in politics; all the hard work and goodwill in the world are meaningless if you cannot achieve the result you seek.
Likewise, success will bring glory even if it is owed partially, or even substantially to the work of others.
This is also the story of Kevin Rudd's first term, of which two years have now flashed by. His greatest success - the extraordinary performance of the Australian economy under dreadful global conditions - is an outcome for which he makes the strongest case for an "A" grade.
And it is the accomplishment whose authorship is the most strongly contested, having been built on a strong existing base.
"My base", former treasurer Peter Costello would argue.
"No - my base!" would come the immediate rejoinder from Paul Keating.
This is what politics is like: it's a rare triumph that only claims one author.
And it's a rare politician whose successes in public life are born of his or her own efforts alone.
But any Prime Minister who can display an economy in growth and an unemployment rate below 6 per cent, at the end of the calendar year we've had, is not a candidate for flunking. Results are results, and however jealously it is debated, he'll get his A.
The global financial crisis has given occupation and structure to the Rudd Government's first term.
Thanks to the crisis, the last two years have been a gratifyingly busy blur of hyperactivity on the part of the Rudd team.
While global financial meltdown is hardly a phenomenon of which new governments would necessarily dream, it has had its compensations.
A magical efflorescence of hard-hat photo opportunities, for example.
An electorate by electorate building program of schools and railway crossings; a snowstorm of cheques.
In short, the financial crisis has given Kevin Rudd cover to be the kind of big-spending, Labor prime minister he spent much of the 2007 campaign denying he would be.
And without the crisis - what would we have to discuss?
How would the Rudd Government of late 2009 match up to the promotional material circulated by its figurehead in 2007, when he was still but a twinkle in the Australian electorate's eye?Without the crisis, it's pretty thin gruel.
"The great moral challenge of our generation" - climate change - has provoked much by way of Government process but little by way of formal advance. It has been the Government's greatest failure.
Two years of consultation, absorption and high-flying rhetoric have produced an emissions trading scheme that has only two more votes now than when this whole thing lurched off on its messy trajectory through the Australian political system.
Those two votes - from the Liberal floor-crossers Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth - are welcomed by the Government, but are about as useful as a pair of fluffy dice given that seven votes are needed to secure the passage of the bills, and two years of moral-challenge wrangling hasn't dislodged even a single Greens vote.
Robbed of a clear result from Copenhagen, the Prime Minister now flies back to Australia to rejoin a domestic debate that is made harder, not easier by the weekend's events.
The intransigence of China lends powerful ballast to the Coalition argument that if big polluters aren't prepared to commit themselves to enforceable emissions reductions, then neither should we.
For much of this year, the Prime Minister's public marketing campaign for his emissions trading scheme was occupied rather less with the detail of the scheme itself than it was with the proposition that the Coalition was an unsightly rabble of mad uncles and denialists who wouldn't care if the Great Barrier Reef boiled dry.
Behind the scenes, compromise after compromise bleached the scheme of clear purpose, which won't make anything easier for a Government now required to sell it on its own merits, on a near-deserted global stage.
Even the Government's climate guru, Ross Garnaut, finds the legislative response uninspiring.
Success is its own legitimator in politics, and it is very difficult to describe anything to do with the Government's climate change response as a success; given the dismal results, it's hard to award anything better than a C minus here, despite the elbow grease applied by Penny Wong.
Given the new vogue for "retail politics" as popularised by Tony Abbott and his heart-attack-inducing new finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce, it's worth a glance at the promotional gewgaws promised by Mr Rudd two years ago as part of his hard-sell routine, and where they are now.
Easing cost-of-living pressures on Australian working families?
Fuel Watch and Grocery Watch ended up, unsurprisingly, on the rubbish tip - cheap gimmicky toys that succumbed quickly to the inevitable and were deemed not worthy of repair.
These initiatives earn a "D" for "Disingenuous".
The wafted promise of federal command over the strife-torn hospital system?
This was a confident alarum from Opposition, but in Government it has swiftly acquired a swarm of qualifying sentiments and is now comfortably marooned in a review process, anointed temporarily with extra dollars.
Which brings us to the Education Revolution.
The Education Revolution is another entity with much for which to thank the Global Financial Crisis.
Without the GFC, after all, we would never have had the BER, or P21, both of which have given the DPM so much to talk about.*
A crippling potential shortage of acronyms has been averted through application of extensive public funds, and by happy act of intervening crisis, the Education Revolution, which was in distinct danger of not being very revolutionary at all, at least has activity to report.
Julia Gillard, meanwhile, has a creditable preparedness to take on the Labor constituency and make enemies - something at which the Rudd Government on the whole has proved surprisingly timid - on the matter of school performance assessment.
Education earns a B.
What about the other promised Bs of the 2007 campaign - Bipartisanship and an end to Buck Passing and Blame Shifting?
Well, there was a genuinely gracious moment early on during the National Apology to displaced Aboriginal children, but since then bipartisanship has been pretty thin on the ground. And despite campaign assurances, the Buck has at no point seemed at any danger of taking up permanent residence at the Lodge; this Prime Minister is as eager to point and blame and nag as all of his predecessors.
Which is not especially surprising; just disappointing, as it always is.
Overall, I'd call the Rudd Government's first term so far a B minus: Student shows a strong work rate, but it's not always well-directed.
*BER stands for Building The Education Revolution. P21 means Primary Schools for the 21st Century. DPM is the Deputy Prime Minister.
Comments (52)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Roy:
21 Dec 2009 1:53:42pm
Well said Annabel.
I am reminded of Paul Keating's comments from early in the term when he suggested the Rudd Government lacked narrative. I expect that this would still be the case had the GFC not come along. It was almost as focussing for a meandering government as declaring war on someone or something!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Janeb:
21 Dec 2009 2:44:49pm
B minus??? More like F for FAIL
Agree (5) Alert moderator
-
the yank:
21 Dec 2009 3:06:53pm
Abbott and Co. deserve the F.
Can't blame Rudd for the climate change result at home, he tried hard it was the Conservative party that ran away from the question.
As for Copenhagen of all the pollies there he was the one who went the extra mile to get the best result and as far as I am concern he deserves an A for that.
The other minuses are small in comparision.
All up if Obama gets a B+ Rudd deserves an A-.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
John O:
21 Dec 2009 3:26:18pm
Yank,
Rudd A-? Wow you mark easy.
What has he ACTUALLY done?
Said sorry.
2020 summit (hmm does that count as a success?)
Workchoices lite
The economy may or may not have had some help from the stimulus but the fact it cost people lives and homes should surely be a red mark even if it did have any impact on the economy (that's still debateable)
And that's it.....
Hardly a successful term at all.
The list of fails is much longer.
I think Rudd is in for a shock if he goes for DD on climate change and then ETS.
Agree (6) Alert moderator
-
-
Jeff N:
21 Dec 2009 3:07:20pm
yeah Janeb, its a matter of opinion.
A very subjective question, and Annabelle Crabb's very eloquent opinion has been given a platform by the tax payer through the ABC. Really it should have a big sign on it saying "this is Annablle Crabb's opinion". Giving Rudd a B- seems rather nuetral. What if AC wanted to give Rudd an A+, or an F. Betcha there would be a big sign up then, or more likely it would never be posted.
I dunno...seems like more and more like the media are giving us somebody's opinion rather than news. And the ABC is going down this direction too.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
-
-
EJHall:
21 Dec 2009 1:57:06pm
Gary Humphries didn't cross the floor on the ETS. It was Judith Troeth and Sue Boyce.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
kevin's gone:
21 Dec 2009 2:27:03pm
Take an A for that contribution!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
easymark:
21 Dec 2009 1:57:28pm
B minus is a bit generous. I wish I could get a B minus for talking about doing things with out actually doing them.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Filz:
21 Dec 2009 2:24:15pm
B minus a bit generous? I'd say very generous. After all, what has the man (and his team) actually DONE? They panicked when the GFC hit the rest of the world (remember Australia didn't go into recesssion), spent billions and continue to do so, in the best of Labour Party traditions. I must admit a grudging admiration for KRudd fixing up our roads, but did he have to do them all at the same time?? As for industrial relations, trade, etc, nothing has really changed, except that "Beacon Australia" seems to be attracting rather more illegal immigrants/refugees than in recent years. More speeches and his term will be over.....
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Edward:
21 Dec 2009 2:41:12pm
Umm, Filz, one of the main reasons we didn't go into recession was BECAUSE he spent billions.
Your comment could just as easily have read - You gave me all that medicine and I didn't get sick once! Same thing really.
And when will people get over this xenophobic hysteria about boat people. We have over 100,000 immigrants a year. Less than 2% of that number are boat people. A higher proportion of illegals arrive on planes, but apparently if you can afford the cheapest JetStar fare then you're welcome to stay illegall without recrimination.
Let's just bring them all to Australia - process them and if they're genuine refugees - they stay. If they're not, deport them. Easy.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
TrueBlue:
21 Dec 2009 3:31:11pm
Edward first giving away and spending billions of dollars on unproductive things is a sure plan to make a country poor in the long term (just ask the Argentina's). The Australian economy didn't go into recession because it wasn't going to since China's demand for resources didn't fall any where near what Swan said they would. I give the Government no credit for avoiding a recession. I will blame them when Aust growth is below trend for many years due to the increased debt we now carry.
As far as illegal entries trying to compare someone arriving by plane (full documents, no criminal records, full search etc etc) who overstay their visa and work (don't take welfare or free medical services) to a boat person who is trying to sneak into the country (no documentation, no medical checks, often with criminal records) looking for free hand outs of welfare and medical is ludicrous. Protecting one's borders and deciding who enters a country to ensure that they actually add value and increase the national wealth isn't xenophobia its common sense and basic survival.Agree (6) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Old RSM:
21 Dec 2009 2:32:31pm
Rudd also likes to say sorry for stuff as well as make statements in support of motherhood, sunny days and cute puppies.... you know. It's all about the vibe.
He does tend to go missing when the going gets tough, however (remember the whole book pricing furore when he wouldn't even bring himself to vote in cabinet. He hid in his office instead).
Not a good look for a national leader.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
mac:
21 Dec 2009 3:08:16pm
Old RSM - it's the economy stuoid! And on the economy the government has done well. The ETS is not finished yet.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
sue11:
21 Dec 2009 2:43:13pm
Easymark your wishes are granted. I give you a B minus for your posting.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Pedro X:
21 Dec 2009 2:01:57pm
Great piece!
A crippling shortage of acronym would provoke a smirk from anyone.
But what about Industrial Relations? Surely that is where La Gillardine has really done well, lifting the program to a B. She took on the unions to a surprising degree and got the L/NP to accept the deal.
Bad government legislation like Work Choices was a big reason the L/NP were removed. Bad government legislation like the ETS/CPRS (it was so important that it merited two acronyms) is a big reason why Rudd might need to be removed.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
cristophles:
21 Dec 2009 2:19:02pm
Crippling Shortage of Acronyms...lol
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
rob1966:
21 Dec 2009 2:06:39pm
Personnally I'd probably go a "B" on the economy - good utilisation of available resources to pass the course, although reducing resource availability and economic flexibility for future years.
But an overall B-minus? I think you are being somewhat generous Ms Crabb (especially with at least one "D" in the assessment).
C-plus perhaps (although even that is a bit of a stretch), but I would more comfortably award a "C" overall - average performance, achieves only what is necessary to pass, no exceptional standout performances, high rate of absenteeism.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Simon:
21 Dec 2009 2:06:44pm
"Education earns a B."
Um.. $800 million dollar budget blow out on school computers... Gillard should have been sacked.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
sally mee:
21 Dec 2009 2:08:57pm
"Overall, I'd call the Rudd Government's first term so far a B minus: Student shows a strong work rate, but it's not always well-directed."
He's obviously the teacher's pet. Most of the other kids in the classroom would have given him a C at best. But apparently this teacher awards marks to kids for "just turning up" at class. And as for the teacher's comment "....not always well-directed", is this code for "...seems intent on trying to take over the class with material hardly anyone else understands or is the least bit interested in.....". She also forgot to acknowledge her grade was mostly based on his attendance at Sunday School.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Joe Hoogland:
21 Dec 2009 2:10:02pm
I think that Mr Rudd's climate change failure has been a lack of community engagement; such a fundamental reform surely needs an explanation to the public regardless of the fact that the majority is in favour of some kind of action. The second climate change failure has been the limp wristed legislation.
When he came to power I heard Mr Rudd argue that he would assess a problem, act to fix it then measure the results. I interpreted his messages to mean he would pursue policy. His response to the GFC encouraged me to believe his argument - by any measure the policy responses were well considered and executed. In contrast, his climate change legislation shows the extent to which he has been prepared to cave in to vested interests even though he was well warned of this by Prof Garnaut.
In my view he will move from your B minus to an A if he scraps the CPRS legislation and starts afresh, imposing an efficient policy which avoids the pitfalls already learnt from the EC experience. February will tell all.Agree (3) Alert moderator
-
Spinner:
21 Dec 2009 2:10:21pm
If Obama, who has achieved precious little apart from collecting a probably undeserved Nobel Prize for of all things, Peace, rates himself a B-, then Rudd is probably deserving of a D- where D stands for Disappointment.
So much spin before the last election. So much bragging following the election in which he garnered a clear mandate to actually do something, and so very little actually achieved.
Propping up the economy in the face of the GFC? Well; I suppose any political leader who threw bucket loads of money at whoever was ready to catch it (and some who weren't as well), was certain to minimise the effect of that crisis by default. And that is exactly what Rudd did. I am not sure how much credit he deserves for that.
Many of us held out hopes that he might do something about mitigating AGW in line with the philosophies of Professor Ross Garnaut who was held out by Rudd as being the guru of solutions to combat AGW. But alas! Even that has been slipped into the politically too hard basket. And still, after Copenhagen, he doesn't listen to Garnaut.
So, apart from making somewhat of a fool of himself, and Australia, on the international stage, going around slapping world leaders on the back, telling us what, and making no apologies, there have been few achievements. In fact, upon more detailed recollection, very few indeed.
I am inclined to amend my earlier rating of D- to and F- there being no mitigating circumstances to support the former grading.
I am one of those who are responsible for voting this man and his band of merry men and women into office, and as soon as there is some sign of a reasonable alternative on the horizon, based on Rudd's miserable performance to date, hope to be one of those who vote him out of power.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
kevh:
21 Dec 2009 2:10:32pm
Well written Annabel. However, I wish I had you marking my progress when I was at school, you're a soft touch.
You give Rudd an A for his handling of the GFC. Unfortunately not all assignments are in and the overall result is inconclusive. Throwing billions at the problem is one thing, managing the recovery another. One consistent theme throughout his first two years is his propensity to put off tough decisions or dodge them entirely. I say we wait for a couple of budgets at least to see whether he has the stomach for the pain he will have to inflict on those who funded his GFC response, the taxpayer. Only then can we really give him a meaningful mark.
As for climate change, he has failed miserably to live up to his own rhetoric. I don't blame him entirely for the Copenhagen fiasco, but he did have his finger stuck firmly in the pie. He should however be held entirely to account for his pathetic CPRS which would do nothing to cut our emissions and was always only a political response. He should be gettig an F on the 'great moral issue of our time".Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
warshawski:
21 Dec 2009 2:11:13pm
The economy was saved by 3 things, the banking sector being better regulated than in the US and UK, the governemnt having no debt and demand for resoucses (especially from China) returning very quickly. The government response was poor in that Kevin etc kept on stating it was the greatest disaster ever without explaining that Austarlia had several advantages over the situation in the USA and Eurpoe, some of the stimulus was needed where targeted but much has been a waste. Also look at the people smugling and the Indonesean solution all it has done is cost us money and political good will with Indonesea and not contributed to a solution, overall a C minus.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Ken:
21 Dec 2009 2:14:45pm
Kevin Rudd does not deserve an A, B or a C for the state of the economy. He inherited one of the best economies in the world when elected and he would have had to have been the most incompetent PM ever to have taken us in to a serious recession even the global financial crisis. All he did was over-react and put us in to record debt for no good reason as it is China and the Coalition that are the reason for the Australian economy being so resilient. Kevin Rudd and his comrades have done nothing but failed on almost every front including massive budget over-runs and incompetents on the BER, turned our border protection in to a sham, made our Banks less competetive, tried to hit us with a massive failed ETS tax, changed industrial relations regulations to give militant unions more power and of course more strikes (with plenty more to come), given us record debt with the resultant massive increases in taxes to come into the future just to pay the interest bill alone (won't happen until after the next election of course), etc. etc.. Kevin Rudd has failed Australia and the future of the working families of Australia and of course the main question still remains - who really is Kevin Rudd and what does he really stand for apart from making boring speeches?
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
claude:
21 Dec 2009 2:16:56pm
There is a saying of some thought, 'if you can fake sincererity you have it made.' Kevin Rudd would get an A+ on that effort, that propably will explain the lack of substance to what he has achieved so far.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Steve:
21 Dec 2009 2:20:40pm
No mention of Fair Work replacing WorkChoices, which was supposedly THE issue that got Kevin07 across the line (or was it just that he WASN"T John Howard?)
Or is that another Gillard achievement whilst big Kev was overseas? Now there's another achievement you've not noted, spending more nights O/S per annum than any previous PM, and leaving a woman in charge back home! And what about wearing out his own staff even quicker than Opposition leaders?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
luke warm:
21 Dec 2009 3:25:16pm
"and leaving a woman in charge back home!"
Something wrong with having a woman in charge back home is there? Not being a trifle misogynist are we? Even the Liberals have a woman (sorry, 'loyal girl') as deputy leader (of course expect that to change if Tony gets to be PM - lol).Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
ingenuous:
21 Dec 2009 2:20:42pm
I can accept that Rudd gets points for the economy. But for continually snubbing the Greens on climate policy, at best he gets a D.
The Education Revolution mystifies me. The sort of revolution I'm looking for is to stop funding private schools. Not the sort of thing our Mr Rudd even thinks of. Give him a C.
And then there's fruitcake territory: that internet censorship is a good idea. His secret censorship plan earns him an F. It's so big an F and in such a bright slash of red Texta that it's really the only mark that counts.
Mr Rudd, rating F. Please rework and resubmit.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
luke warm:
21 Dec 2009 3:31:48pm
Stopping the funding of private schools would be a revolution alright. Chaos would ensue as they started pulling out of the education system, leaving public schools to pick up the shortfall of places. Watch out for the increase in class sizes, the increase in costs to you as a taxpayer (as the govt has to build new schools or buy the private ones). Like it or not, the facts are that private schools reduce the cost of education to the average taxpayer.
And there was no point in courting the Greens on climate change, even with their support Labor could not have got the ETS past the Senate, thanks to Fielding (whose engineering background does not allow him to understand scientific evidence and probability).Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
John Clark:
21 Dec 2009 2:24:13pm
After 2 years, Kevin Rudd hasn't made a firm decision - about the ETS, about calling a snap election, about taking over the health care system from the States, or about fast-tracking the broadband roll-out. I said on Day One that he "hit the ground consulting", and I predict it will just go on. Why:-
Recall the ABC TV series: "Yes, Prime Minister". The problem is Kevin Rudd is in fact: Sir Humphrey Appleby, not Jim Hacker. So his entire career as a profressional public servant has been about "offering advice (to Ministers)", not about making decisions himself.
For as Sir Humphrey often reminded Jim: "Making a decision would be a very bold move, Prime Minister."
"Oh good heavens Humhrey, not 'bold'?"
"Yes, Prime Minister!"Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Keith:
21 Dec 2009 2:24:38pm
Good to see you're still spinning for the government Annabel.
Your grasp of facts appears to be as nominal as usual.
Why didn't you include Rudd's Lowy Institute harangue ? It is unprecedented in Australian Prime Ministers to publicly ridicule and name-call people, just because they have a different point of view on climate change. A rational person could have used such an opportunity to explain why his view point is the correct one, but no, he instead chose to belittle and bully. He scores an F for Fraud on that one, as his actions most closely align with standard fraud tactics. Once the PM grows up, perhaps he will restart the debate as one that occurs between adults. A few more failures will afford the PM of some more growth experiences - if his caucus doesn't get to him first.
And no rating for the blame game ? Just disappointing ? He is only warming up.
You should have given Wong an A for Arrogance. Her department has produced a series of incorrect and downright misleading information reports, yet this minister still survives. Many queries looking for an explanation of the methodologies and provenance of the data being used has met with total silence, from both the department, and the minister's office.
Elbow grease indeed - busily telling unsubstantiated lies can only deserve another F for (again) Fraud.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
kevin's gone:
21 Dec 2009 2:25:07pm
Generous mark for a pupil who did little other than talk? He doesn't listen, shows off, only mixes with like minded nerds and contributes very little to helping others. Some students even described him as socially retarded. I never liked the kid, to be honest, if he was in my class I'd fail the little brat. But, the consensus appears to be that about half the class likes him and he therefore deserves a C+. If only he applied himself to meaningful tasks, instead of always wanting to skip class so he can go on bus trips to the museum.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Felix:
21 Dec 2009 3:29:30pm
An A+ for your report card!
Captured young Kevin perfectly.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
mike:
21 Dec 2009 2:26:20pm
he seems to do a lot of talking and smiling when the cameras around but cant see that he does much more...we still havent got high speed broadband and their doesnt seem to be any improvement in the hospital system...petrol and food prices haven't dropped and interest rates are on the up...combined with an increasing deficit I wonder where all this talk will get us?
I'd give him an A+ for the talk but a C- for the walk.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Paradise:
21 Dec 2009 2:31:14pm
With a conservative opposition enjoying renewed hypocrisy and duplicity, led by a cadaverous team of retreads plus B. Joyce's one man political disco, we haven't had much needed progress on reform. The Greens are as politically stupid as they are morally righteous. We'd be better off with the gamble of a double dissolution election, hopefully giving us progress while perhaps killing off the barnacles in the senate. Rudd has worked hard, thought and planned well, but has to conjure up numbers in his favour out of a stupid and self-interested electorate on climate issues. Copenhagen was a remarkable achievement; just to initiate a world meeting of this type puts in the same category as the League of Nations, a failure in substance but an innovative miracle. The Gillard factor is valuable too. She has great capacity and will expose the fraud of the opposition, especially that of its climate spokesman, Hunt. He was a fanatical devotee of market-based solutions to climate change. If only we could have a tax on carbon to fund research and development while compensating efforts at ameliorating the on-going damage. The ETS was a sop to Turnbullites, who'll do well out of their usual manipulations. Let's give our world the health and hygeine it needs, now.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Xron:
21 Dec 2009 2:31:46pm
The author is clearly a Rudd groupie trying hard to disguise the fact. Anyone who marked Labor's first term objectively would struggle to award a pass. However, it is the trend today to award a trophy to all participants, so as not to upset the losers, hence Rudd gets a B. Well, very soon most punters will award the guy a D as it becomes clearer by the day that he is just using the electorate for his own enjoyment. Be honest and fail the guy, because he deserves it.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
PJ:
21 Dec 2009 2:31:54pm
The author, whilst elevated from a C to an A for actually corresponding on the government rather than the alternative for the most part, has omitted two key performance indicators,
1. A certain promise about hospitals..I shall leave the grading to the author.
2. A mandatory censorship Christmas present wrapped up, once again, as children-saving-policy (CSP). The electorate are looking past the wrapping. Automatically awarded an F by 96% of pollsters.
For this the author's overall grade is remitted to a B for content.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Manik:
21 Dec 2009 2:35:13pm
Rudd's real score will come in the polls. I appreciate your efforts at trying to balance the ledger with some positives but at the end of the day Rudd deserves a C. He has been taking the credit of others work, like the base from which he fought the GFC.
It is time for the media to start applying the same scrutiny to Mr Rudd's work as it has to the Opposition.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
albertog:
21 Dec 2009 2:37:20pm
Ony a B minus Miss..?? Obama hasn't even submitted any assessment items and he's got a B+!
You've forgotten to take account of the Fair Work legislation, which was a major Labor policy item in 2007! And what about consideration for extenuating circumstances on the ETS - i.e., having to deal with a "dip-shit" senate.
I'd be asking for a re-mark if I was Rudd.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Bruce:
21 Dec 2009 2:40:37pm
The Armchair critics, galvanized by their partisanship, are out in force, obviously on Xmas holidays and settling in for a little "End of year" bitching! Interesting that nobody here spoke of the hostile senates that both Obama and Rudd are battling against. Rudd is often accussed of being a "Do nothing" yet the legislative program has been enormous and has been frustrated by a hostile senate who have knocked back 37 peices of legilsation in almost two years. I am not so sure it's "Kev the do nothing" as it is the "Obstructionist co-alition".
Excuse me but is the majority always drunk???Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Fingerbun:
21 Dec 2009 2:41:40pm
I think I rate Rudd lower.
On the economy the level of debt truly worries me and we've yet to see how much longterm gain we get from stimulus. Certainly his actions are not those of the economic conservative he claimed to be.
On the education revolution, same deal. I don't think new school halls are the first priority.
I think he messed up the nbn and we are not out of the woods yet with that one. And the filtering of the Internet really, really worries me.
On the whole, I think I'd say " c minus. This student has ability but has not yet worked to his potential."
And I think it may be a different ball game if Abbott does a good job. The fright might spur Rudd to greater things.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
retract heathens:
21 Dec 2009 2:53:24pm
B-minus, are we are on the same planet? This is the guy who creates more emissions and hot air through his talk, talk, talk, than anyone else in a similar role. But when it comes to producing something tangible, he never delivers.
B-minus my ar-e. Very soon the voters will award him a 47 if he's lucky and that in my book is simply a .......FAIL.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Crash:
21 Dec 2009 3:01:10pm
U for useless.
Why wait for the rest of the world to agree on saving the planet. We could always go Solar by ourselves and lead the way. Why not. We have this huge energy source shining on us everyday. Clean and Cheap. A gift to our species. Lets do it. Why not.
The only thing this planet is lacking is leadership. Copenhagen has proved that beyond doubt.
U for Useless.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
roger .b:
21 Dec 2009 3:06:34pm
C- for the Senator CONroy and his religious filter, we now are with China ,Iran and other Big brother countries. Rudd gets a D- for his green lies, looks like the coal/oil/gas industries got to him and wrote the ETS for him.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mike:
21 Dec 2009 3:08:21pm
Annabel, when I was school some 40 odd years ago there were the do'ers, the dreamers and the couldnt care less'ers. Kevein rudd would be classified as a dreamer. That is the gonna do type person that has all these great ideas and does nothing. The only difference between him and the couldn't care less'ers is the shuck and jive that accompanied it. After all these years (of offering excuses for Rudds goona do's) have you not figured this out as yet? Do I have to reming you of the goona do's. The fact that Rudd makes comments about Abbott getting fair dinkum is laughable. Abbott has been behind the scenes giving of his time in many things - and you know that wheras Rudd spins his way through Sunrise escapades and hair dryer hissy fits. It is time to call a spade a spade. Talk about a education revolution - lets start by getting the grades in order first. As far as I'm concerned Rudd would barley scrape by with a D. However for spin, drama and bulldust he would get a B.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Christopher Pyne:
21 Dec 2009 3:09:03pm
It can't be very hard to earn a B if education received one - with a $1.7 billion blow out in spending on the SSD and $1.2 billion on the CIB as part of the GGER*- one can only wonder how poorly one needs to perform to score less.
SSD is school stimulus debacle, CIB is Computers in Boxes programme and GGER is of course, the Great and Glorious Education Revolution.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bruce:
21 Dec 2009 3:20:40pm
Mr Pyne,
if you are wondering what consitutes a "Fail" simply look at Howards 3 years record leading up to the last federal election. The score was given by the great headmaster "Mr/Mrs Populace" who voted Howard a total failure. In fact Howards government was so inept that the headmaster booted him out of school! So there is your measure...now..good luck!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Chris N:
21 Dec 2009 3:12:57pm
Oh goodness what a bunch of poppycock from the peanut gallery. Annabel, I agree with your summation. B- is about right. Regardless of what was or wasn't there in the first place. Rudd's Govt. has done remarkably well to stave off the worst of resession and economy. No mean feat considering.
Highly specative, but if we were living under Abbott as PM, things would be unpleasant to say the least!
CNAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
DavidW:
21 Dec 2009 3:18:36pm
An utter failure over and over and over again. What an embarrassment!
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Hubert:
21 Dec 2009 3:19:39pm
B minus it is...
A+ for the stable and solid economy and for telecommunications winners with national broadband network and showing some grit in dealing with Telstra.
However marks are lost for the proposed internet filter (ultra conservatism from Labor?) and a woefully lacking ETS proposal... Better than nothing, but giving consessions to the very people who are largely to blame in the first place ?Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Eric:
21 Dec 2009 3:33:13pm
We judge our leaders based on the alternative, because we have no scale to work with. There is no perfect leader who gets 1 and an untimate bad leader that gets 10.
Therefor in the end The Rudd Government is far superior to the Liberal/national alternative. This is a lesson for Tony Abbott, he has got to see himself as an alternative, not somone who objects to everything the Goverment does. If he keeps this up, all we will ever know is what he disagrees with (but it will only be for the moment he is so indecisive).
Copenhagen failed because there are too many people like Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce around. It would appear they prefer to be dependant on the middle east oil fields. They lack imagination because they cannot imagine the effect of a billion more internal combustion engine cars on the Chinese and Indian roads. They cannot imagine the disasterous effect of the oil supply comming to an abrupt halt.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Lex:
21 Dec 2009 3:34:03pm
Must concentrate more.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
