During the election campaign Kevin Rudd was labelled ‘Kevin 24/7’ for his prodigious work rate and seeming lack of fatigue. Amusingly, he’s now been dubbed
‘Kevin 747’ for his supposed too frequent overseas trips. According to one Liberal frontbencher "he’s the Prime Minister of Australia, not the emperor”, which perhaps speaks more of his personality than propensity to jet off. However, it’s a bit reminiscent of criticisms of Blair in the early days, and there's growing rumbling about the trips, so is there anything in it?
- Too many? This was the PM’s eighth overseas trip this year (and 43rd day out of Australia). That doesn’t seem too many to me – you’d expect to have to do one or two more in your first year in office to establish yourself and there have been a number of extra things in the diary in 2008 (like the Olympics, G8 which Australia were invited to as a non-core participant, and the conference of the South Pacific leaders).
- Too costly? I’m sure they’ll be some ‘scandal’ in due course when a journalist FOIs and reports the combined cost of the trips. But in reality it’s likely to be a pretty insignificant amount in the scheme of things.
- Use the telephone? No doubt he does this too on a regular basis, but establishing the personal connections is pretty vital especially when new in office.
- Ignoring domestic priorities? The PM has a cabinet team of 18 ministers focusing on the domestic side, so Australia’s not going to fall apart because he’s out of the country for a few days. No doubt he’ll also be taking a whole host of domestic briefs with him, and his officials will have been tasked up with things to have ready for his return. In any case, the pretext to the current trip to the US – on the financial crisis – is a good example of where foreign and domestic issues overlap.
- Not the role of the PM? Unfortunately there aren’t many elected emperors to compare with whether or not foreign trips are what PMs should be doing. But try the opposite – would you want a PM just sitting brooding in Canberra rather than getting out and about and bringing new ideas back to the country?
5 comments:
Interesting that Sarkozy's recovering in the opinion polls over here precisely because he's decided to jet off around the world and be seen to be making an impact on the world stage. (Having a good-looking wife probably helps.)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKLR24494820080827
The Brown camp in the UK seems torn between whether to play the "domestic" card (aware of the criticisms of Blair) or the "getting credibility by being seen abroad with other world leaders, tackling world issues" card (because, let's face it, nobody likes him at home). Interesting seeing him trying to take the middle ground - solving the UK's domestic problems (e.g. finance, energy security) by seeking solutions on the world stage.
Hadn't realised Sarkozy had slumped in the polls that much of late. Also quite interesting that Sarkozy is perceived as quite popular and reformist by people overseas yet sounds like he's one of the most unpopular presidents at this stage of the cycle for a long time.
All the leaders seem to be peddling the line that they are uniquely well-placed to weather the current global crisis. It begs the question who's actually not well-placed? (I think Australia can in many ways argue that they are more credibly than the UK).
Yes, Sarko slumped badly soon after he came to power. The public didn't respond well to him dating supermodels when he had a country to run. Plus he made got caught on microphone a couple of times in a manner that made himself look like an upper-class snob who hated the working classes.
Here's one of them: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/25/sarkozytalksdirty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/25/sarkozytalksdirty
Sorry, here's the link
Post a Comment