I’ve been curious about him for a while since he was supposedly a good sort but unpopular, and I have a lot of sympathy for politicians like that.
Looking at the obituaries and tributes, you’d be forgiven for thinking the only thing Simon Crean ever accomplished in his life was opposing the Iraq invasion, also he was a union figure and did some non-specific trade diplomacy. What were his values and policy positions? Why would he have been better than Latham? Dunno lol, Iraq
I read on Wikipedia that he was the ACTU president during the Accord, which would have been a tough job and quite a legacy, whether you think it was ultimately a bad idea or not.
Regarding his supposed unpopularity, I just saw someone point out that he actually would’ve beaten Howard with an 8-seat majority off Greens preferences, but the Australian didn’t calculate the 2PP properly and so created the narrative.
https://twitter.com/mumbletwits/status/1673198594512527360
Given a Crean Labor government may well have happened in a less stupid world, what might that have looked like? How would his government have changed the country and faced challenges like climate change, asylum seekers and the GFC? Would something like the Intervention still have happened under his leadership? Etc
Just a few brain farts from myself
He was not terribly likeable/relatable with his union ties and somewhat dynastic background.
He was a capable administrator but not a very good politician.
He was up against the full might of Howard’s media alliance. Media coverage of Crean was lukewarm on his accomplishments and trumpeting at his fumbles. Coverage was so one sided it hurt.
In my opinion a Crean government would never have happened because he was a clever man in a stupid world. Labor were trying to sell nation building when all the voting population was interested in was war-fervour and lining their pockets. Only when Labor switched gears with Rudd and started playing the populist game did they manage to achieve some political success. Truly dark times in Australian politics.
Thanks mate. When you say nation building, what sort of things were they trying to do?
I was trying to find some articles to back me up but internet news was very much at its infancy 20 years ago so I had to refer to Mark Lathams election speech where he listed Labor’s promises. That guy was opposition leader for less than a year so i presume most of what he promised was already established and you can see a lot of them were carried through to Rudd’s goverment.
In a nutshell in terms of nation building
- more funding for Education
- more investment in Renewable Energy and a Carbon Trading scheme
- funding for Telecommunications (i.e internet)
- tax cuts for Families & Pensioners with the view of incentivising Pensioners to become child carers and easing pressure on young families
Unfortunately much of this was undercooked and/or flew under the radar because the main political battleground was over Medicare. Which Labor ultimately lost. Labor were being painted as socialists who would either fail to deliver on their ‘handouts’ or cripple the economy in doing so (which in hindsight is clearly an absolutely ridiculous notion).