Labor leadership speculation was of course ignited here at LP by the revival of our Gilly for PM campaign. Seriously, though, if the reports coming in that Simon Crean won his local preselection battle by a margin of 2 to 1 are confirmed (thus negating the influence of the central preselectors by an overwhelming margin among local branch members), there might be trouble ahead for the big man.
Update: The ABC ties the two stories together. The timing of Gilly’s tv profile is looking rather providential. Though I guess that depends on where you’re looking from.
Australian Story transcript of interviews with Gillard here.
Further update: The SMH spins Crean’s victory as a defeat for Beazley.
Now that’s an image that could have serious play. To whom should copyright go?
We don’t know, Liam, Ron found it lying around the interwebs. But we’re happy to acknowledge the source if it’s claimed.
Creany was right out there, tonite. Pumped or pissed. Either way he let fire at Conroy and by implication Beazley too. All good stuff. Simon has had a win at long lost. Won preselection for his own seat. You gotta take ‘em where you find them, however, and what impressed is that the wooden man showed a bit of fire. It was almost fight them (the factional bosses, that is - or at least the bosses of the other factions, anyway) on the beaches stuff.
Here’s too a Crean and Gilliard comeback.
Hmmm, interesting…
I believe Martin Pakula will throw the towel in tonight, as indeed he should. Fancy replacing a former leader and successful cabinet minister with an unimpressive union mandarin. Crean should stay because he has a lot to offer, but he should stop acting as a destabilising force in the party. Shut up Simon and focus on the real political enemy. Get on with life!
As for Julia Gillard, please, spare me. She’s a second rate shadow minister who hasn’t laid a glove on the government as shadow health minister, an area that the ALP should be kicking lots of goals in. She’s a Latham Lemming, a medicare gold author and a serial destabiliser. Her ability doesn’t match the froth and bubble. What has she ever achieved?
She’ll never lead the ALP because she’ll never have the numbers. Her performance tonight on Australian Story will win her no friends in the caucus. I don’t think Beazley, his allies, or the majority of the party room will be impressed. She really stuck the boots in and it wasn’t a good look.
She’s not electable. She’s from the left, is a mediocre shadow, isn’t married and has no children. Sadly that makes her unelectable, unfair but true. Elections are won with the family vote, in substance and perception. That is the harsh but true reality of politics. Some people mightn’t like it but tough. That’s the way it is.
“she has no children” - irrelevant - voters couldne give a stuff about that - no women Australian Prime Ministers have had children.
Sceptic, the irony of your comment is that surely Beazley was the serial destabiliser. And remember the poll numbers on Medicare Gold? It was Latham wot lost it.
“she has no children� - irrelevant - voters couldne give a stuff about that - no women Australian Prime Ministers have had children.
Wbb - Bull. Name the last Australian PM who has been single and/or never had kids? Any since WW1? Hmmm, I don’t think so.
As I said unfair but true. I don’t like it either but that is the political reality. Elections are won in the swinging mortgage belts dominated by young families. It’s a bit hard for Gillard to claim to know what they’re experiencing and have people in these areas believe her. And the media will reinforce this as well. Don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message.
As for Medicare Gold this wasn’t just a Latham brainchild. Gillard had her fingerprints all over it. A dud policy from a dud shadow. She should accept her failure, wear it, and get on with life. We all make mistakes. But it’s hardly the basis of a party leader. She’s just not up to it.
And I repeat. What has she ever done?
Beazley is the only option and the best option for the ALP. He was stiff in 1998, and did an amazing job to hold the line after the terrorism and lying in 2001.
Chifley had no kids.
Sceptic - most people have kids - is why most PMs have also had kids. There is no reason the electorate is gonna think something’s up with her - because she don’t have children. You are riffing off the closet gay politician syndrome here. This isn’t the same. She comes across as dinky bloody die.
Howard has been PM for 10 long years. Proof that the electorate can divorce sexuality and leadership. Hell, anything remotely human and leadership apparently.
Chifley lost his seat in 1931.
He became PM through transition and was not initially elected.
And Chifley’s wife was ill and this was publically known. The choice was sadly not their own.
Bob Carr had no kids. Did Don Dunstan have kids? And I don’t think anyone doubts the quality of Chifley as PM. It was pretty well known too that he had a mistress. Who gave a toss?
I doubt that in reality everyone who lives in the burbs who’s in their 30s and 40s has kids, and doubt even more that they don’t know people who don’t have kids in the same age group. Check out the demographic figures. As I commented on the other thread, it’s likely to be the sort of thing that people say will influence them. Come election time, people don’t vote on such prejudices, and because they’re going to be raised by sly insinuation from the other side, most would rightly regard them as baseless slurs.
Again, it’s worth looking at the results of the Australian Social Attitudes survey for a reality check on how socially conservative the average Aussie is or isn’t.
Further update: The SMH spins Crean’s victory as a defeat for Beazley.
I agree with Mark, well sorta. Like I said on the other thread, I don’t think it will be her lack of kids that will hurt her electoral support, I think her association with the Latham debacle will hurt a lot more.
Though, if she works hard she can distinguish herself a bit from Latham. Like I said earlier, and Brian expanded upon, she needs to develop a profile for non-domestic issues.
sceptic,
there is one thing julia has over her labour buddies and that is she is STEAMING HOT!!!
OOOOooooOOOOOOooooOOOOOOo!
oooOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOOOooooo!
oOOOOOOOooooOOOOOOOOOoooOOOOOooooo!
licklicklicklicklicklicklicklicklick
[hopefully that was read as thoroughly pornographic]
An intelligent, good looking woman who sticks it to absolute fucktards gets me pretty excited…
Did you ever think the lack of kids/hubby is actually a bonus? how many people are actually still clinging to that outmoded social instituion that serves to reproduce the bourgeois mechanism for the narrow distribution of property/education/capital accumulation?
kim is anti-hot. he is like a *black hole* for hotness. someone is going to get a post-doc at the CSIRO to understand how this strange celestial body cannot escape the orbit of the ALP federal leadership. in fact, they are going to need a linkage grant with some covert back-ops shit from the US that has access to alien technologies so as to understand how in the sweet jeebus something like big kim exists. was he the Demtel devil spawn of a Big “I’m Excited” Kev cloning experiement gone wrong? Godot only knows, and I am sick of waiting for an answer. I just hope someone is happy with their free steak knives.
Just like stupidity is its own truth, John Howard could never have sex. So. how. does. he. have. kids? He should be hauled up in front of some sort of human rights commission, because however his kids were created was a crime against humanity. Suck on that bourgies!
yep. i don’t think you should underestimate the julia-is-hot vote.
I know who I’m ROOTING for!
Yes, I tend to agree, mick, but I think it’s to her credit that she’s about the only member of caucus not prepared to rub Latham’s nose in the ashes of his leadership. Let’s not forget 47 voted for him. Which is what (in part) the Victorian right putsch is all about.
That’s a very steamy comment, Glen!
The timing of this whole pre-selection thing is pretty bad for the ALP isn’t it? Get ready for a bunch of editorial space to be set aside this week discussing the potential white-anting of Beazley’s leadership. The ALP was making ground against the government on the AWB fiasco, now they are going to lose it because they are going to look weak on leadership.
Beazley should have done the math and just supported Crean a week or two ago in order to keep the ALP on the front foot.
Yes, it’s not fabulous. Beazley of course gained a lot of his support in the first place because he could be relied upon never to take on the factions and the party machine. And Crean lost most of his because he did in his first year in office. So it’s not surprising at all from the Beazer.
wbb,
I’m not insinuating anything about Gillard’s sexuality, nor am I judging her on choices she’s made in her life. That’s a matter for her and she shouldn’t be judged because of it.
I’m simply making the logical, realistic and obvious point that politics is a numbers game and if she became leader of the ALP how would she go in winning marginal seats dominated by young families. Perceptions my friend are everything.
You think it doesn’t matter. Good luck to you, keep living in fairyland. I think it does, and I suspect so too does the media. Why do you think they keep raising this issue?
And I repeat, it is unfair but it is something she knows she has to deal with. She’s never baulked the issue to her credit. But I don’t see any reason why this issue shouldn’t be raised. Whether you like it or not it is a factor the ALP will need to consider if they ever make her leader.
I haven’t been able to find later figures, but based on census data from 1999, it was estimated that 22% of women then aged 30 would never have children.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Andrew West has a point:
That may not be the case for everyone, but I suspect it was an attempt by Gillard to shape opinion that way. And good on her. It’s not as if anyway, all female leaders in politics have been defined as motherly. Look at Thatcher. And nor should people be defined by their relationship or family circumstances. A lot of politicians’ actual “family values” wouldn’t bear too close examination.
Oh, and as pointed out on the other thread, conservatives don’t seem to worry about Condi Rice being single and childless.
But do they dominate the demographics of the marginal seats?
In particular the Western suburbs of Sydney and the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne?
That is where the ALP have to win seats of the Liberals.
Sceptic - yea sure, they will have to talk about it a bit but I don’t think it is fatal. Then again, what the hell to I know?
Glen, wow, that was a classic comment.
Well, interestingly, a Child-free party was launched the other day. Saw it in the Age but cant find a link. Seems they want a fair go for non-parents!
Meanwhile, AWB Chairman confirms Howard, Vaile, Anderson Downer are lying.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-told-of-awb-problems-last-june/2006/03/06/1141493611271.html
Anderson “cant recall” the meeting.
“A plausible explanation is that entire front bench are incompetents, who pay no attention to anything, ever” said Anderson, who sold his AWB shares shortly after the unmemorable meeting.
“I for one couldnt find my own arse with two hands and a flashlight; even after several high-level briefings”, he admitted.
“Either that, or we couldnt lie straight in bed”.
In googling around, I found another report from the AIFS which suggested that the trends to later childbirth and being childless vary little no matter what level of education, income, etc. women have. And as I’ve suggested before, it’s hardly likely to be the most dominant issue in the election, and if someone tries to make it so, there’s the obvious chance that it would rebound on them.
If one in five women of childbearing age don’t have kids, then most everyone would know someone who did (even among clusters of young families - which are rarer demographically than you might think) and unless they’re really censorious types, you’d imagine they’d understand the reasons why that might be so.
LE, I love this quote from the Oz:
“John Howard said last night he did not believe “for a moment” Mr Anderson had “behaved improperly”.
“The Labor Party apparently doesn’t think so either because they didn’t pursue the matter last week,” he said. ”
Classic John Howard misdirection.
Apparently Downer met with the AWB execs as well. He told them to go to New York and sort it out. They are looking more and more suss, where the hell are the ALP?
Beazley announced his energy policy today (which looks pretty good at a first glance), which is horrific timing. Look at what’s on the plate this week: the AWB, Indian nuke deal and Howard’s trip, the Crean thing, and now energy. They really need a lesson in staying “on message”.
In the bits of question time I saw this week every time the Beazer asked about AWB and sleaze, the government came back with Crean and sleaze and neutered them. I’m getting the impression that Labor hasn’t got any traction on AWB. The bloody Australian is doing a better job than the Opposition on this.
So what will be interesting is how the government uses this to rub it into Labor’s face and whether the Beazer has the smarts to counter it (I noticed that even Rudd avoids the Crean question). Somehow I don’t think so.
I just thought too, given Crean’s record and depending on how Crean’s thumping win and his fiery speech carries through to other tangible results (ie to the demise of branch stacking, factional thuggery, preselection tactics etc I don’t think factions in either the Liberal or Labor parties will completely die off in any hurry), if in the long run Crean’s legacy will be better than most: as the one Labor man who was prepared to stand up to the unions and the factions. And that could only be a good thing for voters. I don’t know - all you party and political historians may care to comment. But Crean has gone up a few notches in my esteem over this debacle.
On the child thing: a disclosure. One of my first jobs was working for a boss who was trying to get preselection to run as Liberal candidate for SA parliament. He spent nearly all of his time on the phone talking dirt, tactics, sleaze whatever. It used to annoy the crap out of us, not only because it would disturb the rest of us as we could always hear him go on and on but because he didn’t do any work and just blatantly exploited work facilities for his “campaign”. Us newbies and juniors didn’t feel we had a right to say anything - he was our boss. Anyway -true story - part of his strategy as we overheard it was to start a family a bit earlier than he and wife planned as it would look good for the electorate in which he wanted to stand. I’m not saying any more about what happened next. But I will say that we all rejoiced abundantly when he eventually got told off by a senior boss and asked to take down Liberal party posters and material he would leave around all over the place - honestly the place looked like a Liberal campaign office - and soon after left to work somewhere else.
OK I think I know what the Libs will lead with tomorrow, from where else but The Australian:
That’s a fantastic quote. Wish he’d said more stuff like that when he was the boss.
Mark is obviously channelling Tim Blair.
This poorly attempt to ditch Crean was ‘arranged’ by Steve Conroy.
I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Bomber has any fingerprints in it.
She came across as honest, loyal and smart. No ego problems. She’s a special politician.
BBEP, the point is that Beazley could have called a halt to it.
Simon is demanding that Conroy lose the Senate deputy leadership.
FWIW, the relevant ABS figures indicate that the incidence of motherhood amongst Australian women in the 25-34 age group is wobbling around 50%, with the long-term trend being downwards. This means that once we factor in things like unacknowledged paternity, the rate of parenthood in this age cohort would be clearly below 50%. The rate of motherhood amongst women in the 35-44 cohort was 76.8% in 2005, and has been relatively steady since 1990 (at least).
Having said that, there is a decidedly speculative, arm-waving air to the claims and counter-claims about the effect of Julia’s childlessness on her electability. In the absence of credible social attitude research on this issue, it is sufficient to note that childlessness did not get in the way of Helen Clark, being single mothers did not get in the way of Tarja Halonen in Finland or Michelle Bachelet in Chile, and being female did not get in the way of Bachelet, Mary Robinson, Violetta Chamorro, or Cory Aquino and Gloria Arroyo, in the conservative Catholic polities of Chile, Ireland, Nicaragua and the Philippines.
He could have but if Crean had such solid local support why should he?
I have never understood the argument that frontbenchers should be protected particularly if the party has lost 4 elections
Paul, have you got a link to the ABS figures?
Mark, I have a spreadsheet which I have laboriously compiled from hard-copy and electronic ABS catalogues. The interface for the AusStats database has changed, some ABS products seem to have recently been discontinued, and so I’m having trouble locating the data cube which I have used to update the spreadsheet, but other relevant data cubes would be in the current catalogue 6224.0.55.001 - Labour Force, Australia: Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of Families, which is at http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6224.0.55.001Jun 2005?OpenDocument
The reason I can’t seem to find the monthly ABS figures I normally use could be that this product has been discontinued. I’ll keep digging away.
Forgot to add, you need to be an AusStats subscriber or working with an account recognised as belonging to an AusStats subscriber (e.g. a Griffith University staff account) to access the material.
Further update Mark. I’ve found my old faithful 6291.0.55.001 - Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Monthly, Jan 2006, data cube FM2.srd
at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/previews/744221AFFDD08F57CA25711600786815?opendocument&TabName=None&ProdNo=6291.0.55.001&Issue=Jan 2006
Thanks, Paul.
Paul, you no longer need to be a subscriber to Ausstats to get this stuff - its all free since the beginning of this year. As part of the change the ABS reorganised their web site but AFAICT have not discontinued anything - its all still there, just not where it used to be.
On Crean, it’s a bit rich for him to whinge about factional deals throwing out sitting members in safe seats in favour of union apparatchiks; that’s exactly how he got into parliament. As for Julia Gillard IMO she’s an untried quantity, and she’s yet another one with no life experience ouside factional politics - I can’t see her connecting well with Mr and Ms Joe Average. To be turned to only in desperation.
Also, it’s unfair that a bad voice loses votes, but it does. She should get coaching (it worked for Maggie Thatcher).
On the children thing, apart from Ben Chifley, Harold Holt didn’t have any, albeit stepchildren more or less qualifies.
Derrida is right about Crean originally enjoying a factional armchair ride to parliament and the front bench. But when Leader he did make fairly cautious steps agains the factional power system (and paid for it). It is odd and ironic that a large part of what did him in (aside fronm the undermining) was his complete lack of passion. If he’s finally showing some, we’re entitled to believe he has undergone some sort of conversion.
Not quite right on Gillard not having any other life. She had a reasonably successful legal career pursuing compensation for injury victims. Quite unlike most of the ALP people today.
Her biggest problem might be coming from the Left faction. Somebody would have to be a standout to get the nod from there. Faulkner and Tanner, with considerable talent have never been seriously considered because of that.
The last one I can remember was Wran, who fairly quickly shed the leftist cloak.Perhaps that’s the precedent.
Paul as derrida derider said.
ABS says their stuff is now free and available to all although to what depth I haven’t tested yet.
It is however one welcome small chip at the subsidised cost advantage university employed consultants have over others.
So….on Julia Gillard, we’re all just going to ignore the Craig Emerson stuff, are we?
Nice work.
How on earth is that relevant, Luke?
for all those poor sods on the left why Gallard?
Tanner has shown more policy development ans innovation than her.
For someone on the left he is aware of the market.
He must believe in hope as he has been married three times.
Why not Tanner? He has a lot more form than Gillard
Sceptic said:
“I’m simply making the logical, realistic and obvious point that politics is a numbers game and if she became leader of the ALP how would she go in winning marginal seats dominated by young families.”
Well let’s see … the last bloke the labor party put up was a young married man with a mortgage and a couple of young kids living in an outer metropolitan area. And fat lot of good it did him.
Robert,
It shouldn’t be, but it is. Considering much of Latham’s real or perceived indiscretions in that quarter were raked over, I worry about the possibility of it being raised again in the Gillard/Emerson context.
Apart from that, I agree with Homer (twice in one week - shit) Tanner is far preferable.
Gillard is not hot.
hot women do not wear pant suits to cover their legs and other bulges.
She also has red hair. for some reason I don’t understand this is a big turn off to men.
I remember the Liberals saying their leader at the time should intervene and ‘protect Ian Mcphee and roger Shipton.
He didn’t and David Kemp and Peter Costello won.
A little time later some stupid liberals used some of this to replace the leader with Andrew Peacock DESPITE the polls showing the liberals ahead.
as Yogi Berra would say it is deja vu all over again
When Maureen Dowd was here for her book promotion on ‘Insight’ the issue of a possible Rice vs Clinton presidential contest was raised, and Dowd stated that while the issue of Rice being black is almost a non-issue in most part of the USA, the fact that she is single and childless was not, and for that reason she would be unelectable.
Does anyone seriously think that Rice would win a primary contest against McCain, to name only one challenger?
Guido, it would be a mistake to either (a) take Dowd too seriously as an analyst or (b) project an analysis of US politics, however valid, onto the different reality of Australian politics. For a start US voters elect a single candidate as President, whereas we elect candidates of political parties (in the main) to a Federal Parliament, from which a government is formed. Secondly, the US has a great many demographically small and largely non-urbanised states (some without a single town as big as Toowoomba, Geelong or Hobart) with a backward, parochial and religiose political culture, which are overrepresented in the electoral College for President as well as in the Senate. We can add to these factors the effects of voluntary voting, and the disenfranchisement of an electorally significant numbers of poor people and members of racial minorities due to laws permanently excluding prisoners from electoral enrolment evan after they’ve done their time.
Can someone, anyone name an election that rice has won?
no didn’t think so.
firstly a secretary of State can’t win primaries. They are out of the country too often.
secondly look at the key constituencies and see who has most of those votes.
The thought of rice even entering the primaries let alone becoming the Republican candidate is for those who have never studied US polity
Speak for yourself, there, BBEP.
Luke, I fail to see why Gillard having a relationship with Emerson counts as an “indiscretion”. Again, these standards are applied to pollies as if they live in a different world from the rest of us - who hasn’t heard of office romances?
Tis true Mark.
Men overall don’t find redheads attractive.
Well, I beg to differ, BBEP. I do. My high school girlfriend who had red hair didn’t lack admirers. What evidence do you have for your statement?
“She also has red hair. for some reason I don’t understand this is a big turn off to men.”
Err, no it isn’t. Redhead women are way overrepresented in magazines and movies precisely because they’re deemed more attractive to both sexes.
BBE writes:
“Gillard is not hot.
hot women do not wear pant suits to cover their legs and other bulges.
She also has red hair. for some reason I don’t understand this is a big turn off to men.”
what are you talking about? please do not come sprouting predictable comments about hotness! you see bulges, well I see curves, and curves are good. believe that! red hair? pfft. whatever.
and whoever thinks that Julia needs voice coaching probably likes the fact that professional sportspeople all now speak in the media like bankers. sure, sponsorship money, become a clone. Howard is a clone. the voice makes julia a person, she should exploit it, not become a non-person Howard clone. we already have enough accountants stripped of all identity who want to play at being politicians. who is john howard? no one. how is he going to remembered? as the most important ‘no one’ for a decade.
Glen, your Julia is hot campaign has your comments flaming
mark, I am a deleuzian. the mechanics of libidinal energy is political.
Oh, yes, Glen, but to affect an older discourse, it sounds like you’d like some reds under (?) your bed.
Luke, I fail to see why Gillard having a relationship with Emerson counts as an “indiscretion”.
Exactly.
survey of women that men found attractive I looked at once.
I forget what I was supposed to be actually researching but it was fascinating.
Let us be quite frank about Gilly.
She is getting older and like most of us who get older she is gaining weight in an areas that isn’t attractive.
I don’t know how she can avoid it, bob Menzies wore double breasted suits all the time to hide he was fat.
She does have bad legs as well.
now if you are talking hot women then the lass from SA or northern NSW are the real McCoy
Mark and Robert….
“Luke, I fail to see why Gillard having a relationship with Emerson counts as an “indiscretion”
You should probably ask Emerson’s wife about that.
My understanding is that Emerson and his wife have been separated for quite some time, even if they haven’t filed the divorce paperwork. Therefore I don’t believe it is a problem. If you know differently then perhaps you should send it to the gossip columns.
All that sounds like you have lust in your heart, BBEP. Bad! Just like Jimmy Carter. Next you’ll be doing Playboy interviews.
“What was interesting was her move to dissociate herself from the real stinker of the Federal campaign, which was the forestry policy, and to present Michael O’Connor in a light where he could explain himself. It was slick PR, that will reach many more people than the pages of the Oz, or even the 7.30 Report, and will go some way towards neutralising the opprobium wafting off the deal between the CFMEU and the Howard Government (I’m analysing this as dispassionately as I can - doesn’t mean I agree with any of it).”
What was also interesting was her silence on the under-the-table agreement between O’Connor, Scott McLean and the Howard Government that the CFMEU Forestry Division would pre-commit to opposing a strongly pro-conservation Labor policy on Tasmanian forests, even if this cost Labor the election. Not to mention the unwillingness or inability of key Labor figures close to the forest industry and the Tasmanian government to cooperate with Latham, Fitzgibbon and Crean to try to develop a policy which was both pro-conservation and assuaged the concerns of forestry workers (as distinct from the concerns of failed student politicians turned factional hacks who’ve never worked a day in the forest industries, like O’Connor and several of his fellow officials of the Forestry Division with their impeccable AUS, NUS, Melbourne Uni SRC and Ferguson Left credentials). Latham, love him or hate him, has put his name to his account of events in his diaries, and a rebuttal is yet to be forthcoming from others in a position to know.
Anyway, with the redundancy notices still being issued to Tasmanian forestry workers due to the remorseless logic of capitalism, that $800 million is increasingly looking like the mother of all missed opportunities.
Mind you, Harry Quick is requiting the Howard Fifth Column in Tasmanian Labor by endorsing the Greens in the current State election. Looks like there are two factions in the Tasmanian ALP: the Quick and the dead.
Robert,
Apart from the difference between something being known and something being gossip, suffice to say I don’t rate gossip.
My point is not that it impacts on what I think would be her ability or otherwise to be PM, (for example, I don’t think Slick Willie Clinton’s pants activities made him any less of a president), but rather, I think it is an avenue of attack for others that we could do without having to defend in an election campaign.
I would have said the same thing about Clinton were he running in the primaries in 2000 not 1992.
Mark,
A woman can be hot to look at without having lustful thoughts about her.
just enjoy the view without spoiling it!
If that’s the best her critics have, then I think that stands in her favour.
But I don’t think it is “an avenue of attack” at all. It was reported on years ago, without any hint of an attack on her (on the contrary, it was regarded as a positive story, and I think that’s how it would be seen if it was raised again in future), and was not raised against her as a shadow minister in the last election campaign. Moreover, they are no longer together.
On a completely different topic, anyone know of any vacant (interesting) jobs?
I only caught little bits of Australian Story last night, but from the little bits I saw I had the impression that people could identify more with Julia than some of the other federal ALP people.
I do wonder whether if she was a bloke, all this worrying about her family and relationship status and history would occur. Somehow I suspect not.
“I do wonder whether if she was a bloke, all this worrying about her family and relationship status and history would occur. Somehow I suspect not.’
If she was an early 40’s bloke with no known heterosexual relationship history, there’d be significant “worrying” - or at least speculating - going on I suspect.
At least Julia has testimonies from O’Connor and Craig Emerson.
I think it would just be a little more muted, Mark. Look at the years and years of whispering about Bob Carr, even with a wife.
Agree Geoff - but what about someone who had been openly in a gay relationship for years. What would happen there?
“Agree Geoff - but what about someone who had been openly in a gay relationship for years. What would happen there?”
He wouldn’t be on Beazley’s front bench, Sacha. There are a significant number of bright, politically able, out gay men in ALP ranks, but they don’t seem to get taken up in pre-selections …..for some reason. If anything, lesbians - Penny Wong and now Penny Sharpe in the NSW upper house - seem to be less terrifying.
I can’t understand the hysteria over Gillard’s failure to practice reverse eugenics with Craig Emerson, either. The more obvious line of attack is that she is a raving pinko who would drive the Australian people into penury.
Geoff. Being bright and politically able is enough to get overlooked in ALP pre-selections. Let alone a safe seat or front bench. Being sensible, in touch with the voters or gay, female or not a union or party hack would definitely be an added disadvantage.
She has two children. A boy and a girl. They look about 10-12 years old.
G.H. — Michael Egan.
Geoff, perhaps women are seen to be less threatening than men, so there are no “out” elected ALP men - well none that were out before their first election.
I can’t actually think of any out male ALP parliamentarians, apart from Colin Hollis, who is no longer a politician.
Oh - there are/were local councillors - eg on the last Sth Sydney Council - but they’re the only ones I know.
What Mark said way back up there. Gillard showed some rare class in her handling of the Latham meltdown. And I’m sure that class resonated with ppl when all around her were pretending they’d never heard of their former majority elected leader.
Nice to see Creany givin’ it a bit of the ol’ Latho treatment at the moment. I’d love to see a Gillard/Crean putsch. Election dream team. Conroy/Beazley are better gotten out of there.
Crean’s near political death experience may have given him valuable perspective on his life’s career. A new man is arisen.
Perfect time too for one last spasm of ALP blood-letting afore the pull together for the next tilt at removing Little Johnny.
On something that FXH said, it does seem that many ALP candidates are trade union officials or political staffers, in much greater fractions than these groups are in the overall community. I wonder if this is reducing the range of ideas put forward in ALP caucuses? Or rather, is it allowing a sufficient range of ideas?
Worth noting too, Sach, that increasingly (particularly in Victoria) the same applies to the Libs (political staffers, obviously not union officials). There’s a whole raft of ex-Costello staffers in Parliament now.
I suspect we can over-generalise though. Anyone heavily involved in party politics (whether they’re a teacher, farmer, train driver, lawyer or doctor or whatever) has an atypical view. And union officials, by virtue of their jobs, spend a lot more time with ordinary workers than most “elites”.
Hey Mark, yes I suppose it’s always possible to overgeneralise. After the last election I read about a number of Lib ex-staffers being elected.
A friend of mine in his fifties, who used to work for the NZ Meteorology office and has been doing applied math for the last decade, once said that most of the federal cabinet ministers are lawyers (or ex-lawyers) and that in his view it would be better to have people from a range of professions (including scientists, not surprisingly) for a larger range of approaches to problems.
I wonder if there’s something in that - or is there sufficient variation amongst people from a single profession? Or is there any problem there? I don’t know.
It is hard to know, Sach. Of course, in the days of expert advice, politicians rarely come up with policy ideas themselves - or at least fleshed out ones. But that’s not to say that a different range of perspectives wouldn’t be a good thing.
There’ve always been a lot of lawyers in Parliaments everywhere!
I’m imagining lawyers buzzing around the Parliamentary honeypots. (Peter Reith with a pair of wings and those awful big glasses.)
I prefer not to think about Peter Reith much!
He just came to mind!
I think I just like a range of perspectives on policy/politics.