Left turn for Labor

A YEAR ago, Kevin Rudd was busy secretly white-anting then Opposition leader Kim Beazley and sniping at the "small target" strategy adopted by the big West Australian.

At the same time that he was leaking against the then ALP leader, he was publicly declaring his loyalty to Beazley. The federal Labor Caucus changed that on December 4, with a deal that locked Victorian left-winger Julia Gillard into the deputy's spot and delivered Rudd the leadership. Overnight, he reversed himself on Beazley's "small target'' strategy, claiming it for himself and abandoned his long-standing opposition to Coalition policies. For all his recently discovered "me-too'' conservative credentials, however, two things must be remembered: Rudd would not be leader without the support of the Left and, on every vote since he entered federal parliament, he voted against the conservative reforms of the Coalition Government. On the empirical evidence, there is nothing to suggest that Rudd has ever supported a conservative economic approach and history tells us that the ALP's Left does nothing without expecting to collect its pound of flesh. Having Gillard a heartbeat away from being the prospective prime minister is not the only reward the Left expects. It will determine ALP policy, should Labor win next Saturday, and it is staking out its territory already, particularly over industrial relations. Plenty of people in the Labor camp believe the race has already been won and have measured their offices with the expectation of being chosen for a ministry in a Rudd government. There is also talk that Beazley will be rewarded for his services with the ambassadorship to Washington and former NSW premier Bob Carr may find himself in New York, as either ambassador to the UN or Consul-General. Both appointments come with outstanding accommodation along the East River. There is even some suggestion that former Queensland premier Peter Beattie may get a gig in London. Closer to home, the assumed done deals for the plum parliamentary positions of Speaker and President of the Senate are coming unstuck. The expected deal was for Victorian MP Harry Jenkins (Scullin), a member of the Left, to become Speaker, and John Hogg, from the Queensland Right faction, to become President of the Senate. That deal is under threat from Ruddites - NSW MP Roger (The Rat) Price (Chifley), a member of the ALP Right, and Gavin Marshall, of the Victorian Left, who first entered the Senate in July, 2002. More cautious Labor figures say it is still far too early to call the election and suggest that the trend is helping the Coalition. That trend, they believe, may have been helped by using veteran Senator John Faulkner to warm up the faithful at Rudd's policy launch, reminding voters that he was responsible for giving the ALP such dud performers as Mark Latham and Peter Garrett. The prospect of wall-to-wall Labor governments may also prove to be a greater disincentive to vote Labor than the mindless time-for-change mantra proves to be an ALP incentive. Every state government is in deficit, everywhere Labor rules is in the red, except the ACT. Wall-to-wall red ink. In the NT, voters being asked about their voting preferences last week wanted to know whether they were being polled for an election to dump Labor's Chief Minister, Clare Martin. In Western Australia, militant union boss Kevin Reynolds has embroiled Premier Alan Carpenter's government in a dispute over his MP wife Shelley Archer's contacts with disgraced former premier Brian Burke, and has threatened to release a dirt file to destabilise Rudd and Gillard, if the ALP wins, telling WA radio station 6PR: "Rudd would chop up his brother to get to the top.'' The polls show the public believes the Coalition has the economic credentials and it must hammer this message home every minute of every hour until next Saturday's polls close. The Reserve Bank is worried about the economy, the US Federal Reserve is worried about the economy and so, too, should the voters be. Who do they really think can handle an economic downturn? Labor, which presided over a million unemployed and the highest interest rates in 30 years when last in office - or the Coalition, which has cleared Labor's massive debt? Before the Coalition won office, there was a constant topic of conversation at every gathering: "Can you help my (wife, husband, brother, sister, cousin ...) find work? They need a job, any job.'' That conversation stopped a decade ago. Rudd's election will revive it, along with increasing inflationary pressures, through the vow to roll back WorkChoices. There's still an opportunity to deprive Labor of votes in the areas where they will count the most - the marginals - but that will require a full-blown campaign on the economy and Labor's team, not just Rudd. Even though many people may have the perception that Howard has been Prime Minister for too long, they respect the conditions he has delivered and, while Treasurer Peter Costello may not be universally adored, he has earned respect for the job he has done. The contrast between the Howard-Costello team and the Rudd-Gillard or Rudd-Swan (as in shadow treasurer, Wayne Swan) team is stark. Rudd may deserve to be prime minister one day, but he has done nothing to suggest he is ready now. He has not addressed issues, he has issued platitudes. The last 48 hours could see a significant correction when working families sit down next Thursday night and work out what is best for them in terms of their future security. Do they want Rudd's Labor to squander the Coalition's carefully managed surplus, or do they want the Coalition to use it to shield them from the economic turbulence ahead? The polls suggest that the risk to the economic wellbeing of the nation has never been greater.