Keating fires rockets at ... Labor.

[Matilda]

In an interview last night on Lateline with Tony Jones, Keating heaped scorn on the Rudd/Gillard
team and their IR policy. It was vintage Keating, and a reminder of why he lost in 1996 - it was
all about him, and how wonderfully he and Hawke had grounded the economy so it could withstand
all the subsequent shocks of inflation/deflation, etc.

That much is true, I believe, but he went on to say in effect that unless Rudd and Gillard took a
leaf out of his book, they were doomed to failure. In his eyes, they were not selling the policy
the way they should, and would go down like Beazley before them. I watched in increasing dismay as
he heaped scorn on all their principal advisers, and I could imagine Howard and Costello rubbing
their hands with glee.

At his best, Keating was clever, sharp, and witty, but in the end, his ego became too big and he lost
sight of the little people he claimed to represent. He came across last night, sadly, as an old man
who still doesn't understand what happened in '96. No wonder the current leadership has distanced
themselves from him - he has nothing to offer, nothing at all.

I hope last night's interview doesn't mark the point at which the election turned in favour of the
Coalition, but I have an awful feeling that it might.

A link to the ABC Lateline page:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1945485.htm

[gemini_liberal]

1. Rudd handled this well

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1946092.htm

Mr Rudd believes Mr Keating's attack is simply the colour and movement that comes with politics and the lead-up to the federal election.

"When it comes to Paul's attack on Gary Gray and David Epstein and Tim , these are first class blokes, they are doing their absolute best for the Labor Party, I have complete confidence in them and therefore he is wrong in his attack," he said.

"The point I'd make is that it's part of the rolling colour and movement show that we get from time to time from Paul. You get a spray from time to time.

"Malcolm Fraser delivers a spray from time to time, John Hewson delivers a spray from time to time. Former leaders from time to time deliver sprays."

He is completely right. This is nothing more than a former leader stating his opinion. In fact, Compared to Hewson and Fraser's usual comments against John Howard, this comment is quite benevolent.

[Matilda]

2. Indeed - and Keating is more prone than anyone else

to delivering sprays.

The problem with this was that he was hitting Labor on its economic and
IR policies, and it's economics that is Howard's greatest strength.
If the electorate decides to re-elect Howard, it will be on economic
performance, because on everything other subject, Rudd is ahead.

Plus, it was a lot of self-serving chest-thumping - Keating not so much
answered questions from Jones, as pushed his own barrel and told us all
how wonderful he had been. In fact, the Rudd/Gillard policies are
not about going back to pre-Hawke/Keating days, as taking us back to
pre-Work Choices. If workers listen carefully, Rudd hasn't even promised
to restore penalties, so he's more radical than Keating ever was.

What was wrong with Keating on Thursday night was that he was off-target,
and his criticisms were largely without foundation, not something Rudd
needs right now. The impression, watching him, was that he has become
bitter, perhaps because Rudd isn't turning to him for advice. Jones did
make the point that the current Labor team has distanced itself from
Hawke and Keating, and that may be the heart of Keating's problem.

[gemini_liberal]

4. I don't deny it's embarrassing and possibly damaging

but it's just a hurdle, not the end. It has already happened, there is no changing that. The best thing to do is just to let it go and move on, so it doesn't become a political storm.

Chastising Keating for this only strengthens his position. It's best to just dismiss this as the bitter rantings of a has-been - much like the Libs do when one of their own speaks out.

This event will be forgotten by everyone before too long...

[RFKHumphreyObama]

3. Keating is bitter

Because Labor has ignored his legacy of economic reform and allowed Howard to be totally credited with the economic prosperity of the last decade. While Rudd isn't responsible for this, Keating feels and not unjustifiably so that previous Labor leaders have dropped the ball on promoting Labor's economic management credentials and legacy when it was last in office and has therefore allowed the perception that Howard is an economic savior and Labor can't be trusted to manage economic affairs to flourish.

This corresponds with what someone in the know told me once -that after the 1996 federal election, Beazley had been advised not to distance himself from the economic legacy of the Keating government. Beazley, however, ignored the advice and wanted to distance himself totally from Keating legacy. At first glance that may seem fair enough because Keating lost in a landslide, however, as I've mentioned above, it also meant that Labor lost the chance to promote its credentials in economic management over the next few years when the economy started to flourish. Now Labor is seen as the party of high interest rates and poor economic management partly because it didn't defend its record

Keating probably lashed out at Gary Gray, David Epstein et all because he holds them responsible for devising the strategies which allowed his legacy to be hijacked by Howard. Which is again fair enough but he is harming Rudd and Gillard in the process and both of them weren't even in Parliament when the strategy was devised. And he's also harming Labor's electoral prospects. I know that he's bitter about what happened but doesn't he want the man who defeated him to finally be handed the same fate? He should save his complaining until after the election

[Aussie leftie]

5. I agree 100% with what you say.

I have always admired Keating the man. Have you seen "Keating" the musical? An absolute must.