By Steve Laing
A smartly dressed man walks up to an attractive woman sitting alone at a hotel bar. “If I give you $50, will you have sex with me?” he asks. “Certainly not” she replies aghast, “I’m not that kind of woman”. “What if I make it $500?” “I’ve already told you, I’m not that type of woman”. “OK, $5,000”. “Listen, I’ve told you, no”. “What about $50,000?” “No, I’m not interested, please leave me alone”.
“OK, what if I were to give you $500,000 – that’s half a million dollars”. “Half a million you say? Just to have sex with you? No, I’ve already said, I’m not that kind of woman.” “What if I were to offer you five million dollars?” “Five million you say?” “Yep” he replies. “For sex, just once?”, she questions. “Yep”. “OK then, lets do it,” she agrees.
“OK, how about you let me have sex with you for $50”. “Hang on, you just said Five Million! And I’ve already told you, I’m not that type of woman!”
“Actually, we have established you are that type of woman, and now we are just haggling”.
OK, it’s an oldie, and undoubtedly highly offensive to some, for which I apologise (can I claim 18D?), but it highlights a very important, and particularly timely question. And it has got the Labor Party in a very ugly pickle.
“That Sam-I-am, that Sam-I-am, I do not like that Sam-I-am.“ Actually, I do rather like Mr Dastayari, he is clearly smart and funny, and whilst a total media tart, he does manage better than many of his colleagues to get the message across.
But some of his past actions and judgment, whilst looking entirely business as usual if conducted by the other side of the house, have raised some very fundamental concerns amongst the public, and are allowing the government to retaliate after a very, very poor start to the 45th Parliament. And like the joke above he has revealed he has a price, and thus his judgement is now forever open to question.
He has, of course, broken no rules (these politicians somehow never do), yet again the ugly reality of the grubby deals undertaken to gain campaign funds, particularly from the established parties is highlighted, as indeed is their preference to not do anything about it other than to cast aspersions on the morality of the other side. It’s a perfect politics shitstorm, and how Bill deals with it will reveal much.
In the real world, Sam would have been appropriately dealt with already. And in fact had Bill been smarter, he should probably have removed him from his post (at the very least temporarily) as soon as it was clear how smelly this would get. But as with Bronniegate, the lack of action creates a political vacuum that must be filled, and it might be difficult for Bill to come out of it looking good.
If he sacks Sam now, the Coalition will claim victory. But if he doesn’t deal with him, then it will be construed that money (and the factions that sit behind such) talks, and that Bill (like Turnbull) is powerless – another hollow man. And that would be a bigger disaster, because if there is one thing that the Coalition are excellent at, it is repeating their opponents mistakes over and over and over again. One thing is for sure. This issue won’t just go away.
So what will Bill do? I fear, like all political leaders, he will try and hunker down and hope it loses importance. I guarantee it won’t. And like it or not, Sam has broken the trust pact with non-Labor supporters that Bill has slowly been building up. The Coalition will continue to milk this for all it is worth – anything to deflect from their own disasters. Of course, they will do nothing about supporting changes to the rules because that isn’t how they run, but they will very publicly political point score till the cows come home.
Which is why Bill needs to do exactly what they don’t expect. Agree with the Coalition, and sack Sam. Of course the Coalition will rub their hands with glee, considering this a major win, but without realizing that this will also do two things.
- It shows that Bill and his cabinet (rather than the factions) are in charge of his party, won’t tolerate this type of behavior, and thus (exactly in line with the Coalition message) PROVE that he is actually prime minister material. This will also win support from the general public who aren’t rusted on Labor supporters, who will actually expect nothing less.
- It gives Labor moral authority to pursue the rules that govern party funding, which they are currently chasing as their only line of defence against Coalition attacks.As I’ve suggested before, if Labor wants to cast off the accusation of being in the pocket of the union movement (rather than working in alliance with), it needs to somehow unshackle itself from union funding, although recognizing that this can only come about when the Coalition’s usual (and often debatable) sources of funding are similarly blunted. This will also gain support from the sectors of the electorate that Labor need to drive a convincing win at the next election (by which I mean votes, not seats) because many see the system as being a large part of the problem.
So will they do it? Will Labor be bold and take the rather unexpected opportunity to try to change the system, or will they try and play the usual political games? Will their loyalty to Sam (and the faction that sits behind him) stay their hand? Will their desire to keep the Greens underfunded be more important than trying to undermine the funding of their real opponents? Because as we know Labor does not like Green Eggs and Ham, they do not like them Sam-I-am.
(And with that I’ll now retreat to the bunker…).
