I accept my naivety, but that's the game of politics

Senator Conroy is certainly the public face of the internet filter, and Labor's Plan for Cyber Safety issued just before the November 2007 federal election lists Conroy as the author. But as Crikey's Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane put it recently, Conroy is just doing his job as a professional politician to implement policy, and the filter is still ALP policy today:

"Look ten years down the track, or twenty years, when Conroy has left politics and he's written his memoirs, for all we know he'll reveal that he absolutely hated the filter and it infuriated him every time he had to defend it... You don't get a choice about these things. There is such a thing as cabinet solidarity which means that you do what you're told."

I can appreciate the comments and points raised by Stilgherrian on the ABC The Drum piece about Conroy and the naivety and arrogance of his critics; particularly in relation to the Internet Filter plans of the current Government.

I do appreciate where Stilgherrian is coming from.

However.

As with any political agenda, party-led or not, a Minister is presented as the face of that policy.

When there is an issue, problem, or dislike for policy within a portfolio, it is the face of the Minister that is not only targetted by critics, but also presented as the individual responsible by the party they represent.

Yes the Internet Filter is an ALP policy. The coalition have a policy too on this. But the point is, whilst the party presents Conroy as the lead on this issue, it will be Conroy that is viewed as a target to those that may not necessarily agree with it.

Afterall, why on earth would the party "remove" Garrett from his portfolio - or at least "modify it" away from the issues of insulation? Why, indeed, remove Rudd, who himself was seen as the responsible individual for so many policies that started to turn a little bad in the polls? In fact, why remove any politician from a ministry following a dip in polls, or total stuff-up?

The positions may well be those of the party. Someone, though, must represent those positions, and take the responsibility.

Conroy may do good. Conroy may also do bad. If I don't like it, I will speak up. If that's being arrogant and naive, then so-be-it - I am happy to judge for myself and share my opinion on that judgment.

Sylvestor

Updated:

It is also important to note situations where the so-called 'elites' do see their pressure change the nature of politics in this country. This morning I am watching the Federal Government, particularly the Prime Minister, roll-over (to a degree) in response to the demands of the mineral and resources elites. The announcement of a 30% MRRT and increase in the base level (7% above Government bond rates) is a complete response to industry elites. So why treat the 'digital elites' any different?