What are those bright sparks in the ALP caucus going to come up with next? Draft a celebrity candidate with an anger management problem as their leader? Worked a treat last time, didn’t it?
Just when the ALP had some issues working in its favour (climate change, interest rates, IR), the nervous Nellies and the Creanite haters get the wobbles because they’re not 500% ahead in the polls. So we get two weeks of leadership destabilisation, and Kruddy talk of the need to “cut through”. Does cutting your own throats count?
Beazley has now taken the best step available to him to put an end to this damaging speculation – a leadership spill. I’m glad to see there’s going to be a spill of the entire frontbench as well – it might focus the minds of some of the dissidents, and also address the legitimate criticism of deadwood on the frontbench the Beazer inherited from Latho.
All this at a time when the government should be on the ropes over AWB.
Haven’t they noticed that the Hawkey template for changing leaders before an election doesn’t work anymore? Debnam, Baillieu, Flegg, anyone?
Pathetic.
I’m backing the Beazer. Can anyone imagine Ruddy addressing the crowd at the MCG yesterday?
Elsewhere: Commentary from Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy. At Surfdom, Aussie Bob examines the Murdoch Press’ motives for pushing the leadership bandwagon. Andrew Norton questions whether there’s any ground in the polls for a challenge against the Beazer, and Tim Blair is thankful that Rudd is yet to make a statement. Rex Ringschott at Troppo breathlessly supports Rudd, while Guy at Polemica sees only defeat ahead as the most probable outcome for the ALP. Jacques Chester at Troppo puts the case for Beazley based on experience. John Quiggin backs Rudd.
Frankly no. Bomber was pretty inspiring at the MCG yesterday.
Oh dear. And just when the next election was starting to look like it may be a competition. Either way, Howard wins. Beazer back in, but further weakened or the Latham mob returns, Mark II.
I’m not a fan of Beazer, but WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!!???!!! *Bangs head repeatedly on desk, removes splinters, resumes banging head*
Actually, as long as Beazley wins, I don’t think he’s weakend by it – in fact, he’ll have a much stronger new front bench.
The best thing he can do is put Gillard in as his deputy. Take the wind right out of Kruddy’s sails that would, plus Macklin is essentially useless.
Getting Garrett on the front bench would strengthen the ALP’s position going into an election where climate change is going to be a big issue – particularly if Beazley has the guts to make him, say, climate change spokesman.
This gives Beazley the chance to get rid of the dead wood on the front bench and come out swinging with a renewed front bench that’ll be better able to stick it to the Howard Govt in the lead-up to next year’s poll.
I just wuv the Milne picture for no reason. Can all youse LPers put it in every post from now on?
OK, a leadership spill is never a good look, but I still think what’s really needed is some finger-pulling-out of the highest order. Whatever it takes to get some strong messages across and actually oppose is worth it for me.
Security guard to Milne:
…
Kim:
Amen. Would someone in Canberra make a photocopy of this word, 1x per Caucus member, and go around the corridors stapling it to their foreheads.
John Howard: “Division is death.”
Any challenge weakens.
But the question is whether it weakens fatally. The marginal voter in the marginal seat is more apt to personalise politics than your average, randommly selected punter.
And it almost always looks to that marginal voter that Howard is the leader we’ve gotta have, as opposed perhaps to the leader we want to have.
Playing in Beazer’s favour is the possibility that some big issues are running in favour of Labor. WorkChoices is a big one despite moderate turn-outs at demos recently.
Rudd is good on foreign policy, but no one really cares, especially your marginal voter in the marginal seat.
Tough choice for the Caucus.
At least Rudd isn’t Latham, who was a boofhead loser.
They really are determined to shoot themselves in the foot, aren’t they?
The Milne picture is great, though.
I’ve been meeting with Bono, and I agree with Rebekka’s take.
Except – what happens to Rudd if Beazley wins? Goes to the backbench? Or stays on as shadow Foreign Minister (where he’s performed well) and can’t “cut through” because every press conference he gives will see questions about leadership.
This is typical of the Rudd self-indulgence to which we’ve become accustomed. He must know the he is incapable of connecting with middle Australia. In spite of this, he’s decided he’d rather conduct a long-shot election campaign with the upside all for him, than a decent shot campaign with him taking foreign affairs. Pathetic indeed.
I wonder whether I can gets odds at Centrebet that the Bomber will be elected the leader of the ALP unopposed following a Rudd-Gillard meltdown?
BBB
Why the hell has Macklin remained deputy leader for so bloody long anyway? It’s not like the Dan Quayle principle applies here.
Yeah, Beazley/Gillard might be the best outcome.
Presumably that’s possible if the entire frontbench is spilled.
Labor have a deputy leader?
Why did the Oz print George Zvigos’ mobile number?
It’s too late to replace Beazley. They have to ride him until he falls apart like the Libs did with their version of Beazley, Andrew Peacock, in 1989. This time next year Labor’s post-Beazley future will be clearer than it is now, and he will be unarguably and completely dead: never mind any nonsense about beautiful plumage or resting. He won’t win. The worst option for Labor is that he does what Calwell did in 1961: loses by a very small margin and hangs around for another couple of elections.
Throwing Rudd in the deep end will be wasting their future options. After he loses Rudd needs to be an energetic campaigner, in every supermarket/cattleyard/boardroom/factory/other place where voters can be found. He needs to be in people’s homes wearing a funny hat, eating a pie, doing all that self-abasement stuff that seems to be necessary in campaigning. To see Keating wince while drinking a can of VB over the summer of 1995-96 was to watch a man shuffling toward the grave of his hopes. Rudd will be a better leader for having challenged now and swallowed his pride, and Gillard would be smart to stand clear.
The front bench should forget their Christmas and rework all Labor policies by February. If they are not sounding convincing by Easter – and remember, in April-May ‘04 Howard was trailing Latham and had no idea how to handle him – they needn’t bother. If the factional heavies crowd out Tanner or Emerson in favour of some arselicker then Labor have nobody to blame but themselves. My guess is that the factions will include at least 4-5 outright duds and then blame the leader for the loss. Like love, being a factional ‘leader’ means never having to say you’re sorry.
From the ‘hopelessly optimistic’ side of my brain: Is there any chance at all this could be deliberate attempt to circuit-break the media cycle? A planned vote to strengthen Kim’s position in media terms?
And I still think Kim can win, for what little it may be worth. As I’ve taken to saying over and over again, remember: you’re not a voter he has to appeal to.
Well, it’s possible, Darryl, and it’s probably why Beazley brought it on. I doubt that he had to. It was pretty clear none of the Ruddites were going to actually have the guts to go for a spill.
What a wonderful antidote to the slimy alp victory in Victoria. In the real game the alp is still a joke. What a choice rudd or Beasley absolutely hobbsian – what a reflection of the paltry pool of talented inspiring people in the alp.
Oh shush Peter Robertson.
No one is interested in your bile here.
Speaking of not being interested, anyone want to pay 55 cents to read Peter Botsman urge Rudd not to run?
http://www.workingpapers.com.au/publishedpapers/2369.html
Dumbest use of new media. Evah!
Speaking of media, is Rudd actually going to make a statement, or is it being left to clowns like Harry Quick?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20852830-5006788,00.html
Richard Farmer in Crikey makes an interesting point:
The Beezer has made it plain that Rudd asked for this – this means that Rudd must believe that he has the numbers. Perhaps Beazley believes that he can pull it back over the weekend with some serious arm twisting but the victory, if he gets it, will not be overwhelming.
Either leader will look weak if the other stays in Parliament. I can’t see Rudd resigning from Parliament, so perhaps the best outcome for Labour would be a Rudd / Gilliard result with Beazley announcing he will not stand again or even resign from Parliament on the spot. I can’t see it happening, though.
Costello will succeed to the Prime Ministership not too long after the next election – perhaps even with the status quo remaining in the Senate.
I dunno, Andrew. Rudd might have believed that Beazley could have been talked into going.
Almost the entire leadership commentary in the mainstream media is the voice of men – wall to wall blokes telling us that Beazley is a “safe pair of hands”, or not, or that Rudd would look competent in his place, or not, or Lindsay Tanner could step to the plate, or not. Thanks chaps, for all the one-eyed wisdom.
On the other hand, Julia Gillard is repeatedly brushed off in a footnote as not experienced enough, or better used as the handmaiden until next time around, or at risk of being swiftboated (by the very same commentariat) because she is a woman with not enough fruit in her bowl.
What a load of crap. More than half the population is female and they have been doing it pretty tough for the last 10 years – many of them are looking for real change, not just swapping the blokes around.
So here’s my “dream team” for the ALP leadership: Gillard as leader and Garrett as vice (with Rudd as FA, and Beazley as anything he likes). Shock, horror, but maybe then the voters (including women and the young) would be more interested in what the ALP has to say.
Dream on.
Cool, Another four years of the rodent. Terrific!!
There must be some real intellectuals behind the scenes – Given the choice to get some traction on IR, Iraq and AWB, they instead choose to destabilise the party.
I suppose such an incompetent party deserves to be in perpetual opposition.
A pleasant dream, grace!
Kim:
On behalf of the honourable tradition of professional clowning, I demand a retraction.
Yes, erm, fair enough, FDB.
Duly retracted.
Mark,
- Laurie Oakes, referring to Malcolm Fraser’s unsuccessful tilt at leadership of the Liberal Party in 1974.
I’m with Grace, but I just wish they’d sorted it all out say, a year and a half ago.
I doubt they fear Ruddy, Andrew. Torn between personal dislike and respect for his political skills, perhaps. But fear?
I mean Malcolm Fraser, in his day, was a real hard edged and unscrupulous bastard.
If Rudd wanted to be leader, he should have said so back at the start of last year when the post-Latham spill occurred. Instead, he wussed out as he didn’t have the votes to beat Beazley*. Now, he has forced a spill and will go in and get 40% of vote and use that as mandate to keep sniping at the Bomber.
As for backbenchers worried about losing their seats, they need to pull their heads out of their backsides as if they didn’t lose it last time, they are not going to lose it next time.
* Gillard at least stuck in the contest until Rudd was out and she actually came out looking like she had bigger balls than Rudd.
I’d think she probably does.
I heckled Ruddles after Freo gave his mob a pasting at the MCG last season – “I reckon the problem’s their leadership team” or somesuch – and all he could muster was a nervous-ninny grin.
Gillard would’ve punched me.
Richard Farmer does have a point about Labor not cutting through on the foriegn affairs issues of Iraq and AWB. It seems to be a common complaint that those issue are not playing the way they should for Labor, but maybe the middle ground voters Labor are seeking do not see them as vote changing issues. They just may be the wrong issues to be putting too much energy into. Rudd as leader is not going to change anything there.
I think it will be all academic anyway because I think Labor has shown itself to be more interested in its own internal squabbles rather than representing the people who voted for them last time.
You know, either way I don’t think Labor has the legs to get over the Coalition in this election. But I think the challenge against Beazley may well have been based upon the turnout at the workchoices protests yesterday. If they were packed, then Rudd may well not have challenged someone riding a strong horse into an election year.
However, they were only moderate in size, and I don’t think many would disagree that Kim has little else going for him – either personally in the polls, or policy wise – those who keep on pestering him to keep on running on Iraq and AWB don’t seem to realise that the electorate either trusts the government not to screw up too much in Iraq by getting some of our boys killed or hates him enough that troops in our out doesn’t make a difference, and that nobody really cares about AWB – if Saddam was in power and continuing to shoot or gas those who oppose him, then maybe, but not now.
So since Rudd (and most others, really) see that Beazley is really only gaining any traction in the electorate over what he is against (whether it be nuclear, Iraq, whatever), and not a huge amount of traction at that, then to salvage any chance of an election win, he has to put up a challenge (for he is the only one able to do it – if Swan or Smith did it, Brutus would look like a loyal man, that and either of them would have to remove their tongues from Kim’s arse).
Either way, however, they will both lose, it simply matters how badly – Beazley is a safe bet to lose, but pick up a few seats for the next tilt, while Rudd is a long shot at winning, but a greater chance of Lathaming (losing badly, then exploding all over everyone).
And Gillard just doesn’t have any traction to make a leadership run – wrong faction, wrong ideology for Caucus to give her the time of day if they didn’t have to.
Those of you who think the was Bomber’s decision are fooling yourselves. It’s clear he is acting upon a demand. Word now is that the numbers seriously flipped late last night. Rudd to win in a canter. Conforms with Rudd’s recent history of spinelessness.
Yet another free kick. At times one wonders whether some of the agitators are in fact Liberal Party stooges.
BBB
Kim, I was referring to the fact that Rudd is Johnny-No-Mates in the caucus. Nobody fears Beazley. Any Liberal who loses a seat to Beazley would be a laughing stock. It’d be like getting bashed by a Wiggle.
Stuart, you only get one Latham. As Michael Duffy pointed out, the sitting MP most likely to do a Latham is Abbott. Rudd would be way down that list.
Who would Jesus vote for?
Rudd to get up, is my prediction. He’s run this meticulously. I would take issue with the idea that this is poor timing. It’s just about perfect timing. As the Latham experiment showed. Long enough to get a good run at the next election but with still a little of the honeymoon halo.
I doubt it. It’s what the swinger voters think that matters, and I doubt any of those were to be found at the workchoices rallies.
Chris – true, but if the demonstrations drew more than the cast of ‘usuals’ and ‘probables’ – in other words, if you had 100,000 or so at the MCG, etc, widesweeping protests, businesses shut down due to lack of staff, etc, then I think support both within and without of Caucus would have firmed up a fair bit for Kim. But since it was an average protest day (especially considering that the state premiers were handing out days in lieu to the bureaucracies and turning up to protests), Rudd saw that there isn’t nearly enough traction to be gained with Work Choices – especially as that for around every protester who attended across Australia there was another person somewhere who had gotten a job since Work Choices started. And that is the kicker for the Labor party – their rhetoric about job cuts and all the rest seem rather overstated (to say the least), and they get hammered every time in Question Time over it.
So those swing voters in Caucus may well switch to Rudd, as a campaign based on creating nothing but tearing down a fair bit didn’t work for Kim in 2001, and he couldn’t even get in with the massive GST scare campaign in 1998 (remember that? Those ad campaigns in 1998 and the rhetoric coming out from Labor back then make talk about 2001 and 2004 being won through scare tactics rather obsolete). But I guess tomorrow will tell.
I think Chris has it. It is hard to win an election if people have stopped listening to you, sad as that is. And that is what has happened to that nice Mr Beazley. The 1980s have been over now for 16 years. Time has moved on, and so must Mr Beazley. I am looking forward to that feisty gal Ms Gillard as Deputy Leader. Ms Macklin gets 1/10 from me for effort, and 0/10 for visibility and relevance, even in her own portfolio, let alone in the important role of Deputy Leader.
It’s time to move on, as Mr Howard is always saying.
Chris, don’t you believe it. According to a paper by Andrew Leigh on the topic, roughly one-third of union members vote Tory, and that number increased slightly over the last two elections.
If the unions can convince a significant fraction of those one-third to vote Labor, it will be just about enough, by itself, to push Labor over the line.
Macklin’s career as deputy is one of the great known unknowns in Australian politics. What was that all about?
Stuart Lord I you are kidding yourself if you think that there is little traction to be gained from Workchoices, but in your defence your not the only one. Indeed todays Australian declared yesterdays IR rallies “an overwhelming vote of confidence in the Howard Government’s recently introduced Work Choices industrial relations laws.”
The objective evidence simply does not bare this out. The most recent Newspoll on the subject found that Labor(49%) lead the Coalition(28%)by 21 percentage points as the best party to handle IR.
This isn’t terribly significant in it’s self but it is a big deal when combine with some other Newspoll figures. The proportion of voters rating IR as an important issue in decididng how they vote at the nexts election has increased from 32% in early 2004 to 54% this October whilst other hot-button issues like health, education and national security have been pretty much static. Internal Labor polling is clearly showing the same thing, otherwise they wouldn’t be running on IR in state elections.
So the anti-Workchoices campaign has been an unambiguous sucess. Thats the main reason Rudd wont be dumping Labor’s IR policy. There are others.
The ALP has put a lot of time and effort into campaigning against Workchoices. Abbandoning one and a half years worth of effort would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. It would also REALLY piss off the unions.
And one more thing. Rudd is just as opposed to Workchoices as Beazley, maybe more. In his article Howards Brutopia in last months Monthly magazine Rudd outlined the philosophical underpinings of his domestic policy views. Key among them was opposition to market fundamentalism and “the commodification of human beings.”
Yes, one of the interesting things about this whole leadership hoohaa was discovering that the ALP apparently has a deputy leader known to a small clique of insiders as “Jenny Macklin”. Who knew?
But the revelations dont stop there: its even being alleged in some quarters that she is, or was, unbenowst even to them, education spokeshead!
Cripes!
So maybe it’ll be Rudd/Macklin by Monday night.
I think the Commonwealth Bank AWAs have the potential to reinforce existing concerns about WorkChoices. The “choice” clearly isn’t there, and they really undermine conditions.
Big white-collar employer going down this road will get a lot of people’s attention.
And the Victorian Workplace Advocate reports that the biggest single source of complaints to his office is teenagers being coerced into signing AWAs in retail and hospitality which reduce pay rates.
I’ve always believed that the impact on kids in the workplace will be significant for their parents.
I has me doubts about whether we can win the next election, no matter what happens. But when I heard that Rudd was going to challenge this morning I breathed a huge sigh of relief.
It does seem mad to challenge, especially given the Latham disaster, but ask yourself this – have you ever met anyone who has said, without smirking, that they think Beazley will make a great prime minister? Labor members, have you ever been able to say ‘I will be campaigning for a Beazley Labor Government’ without wanting to fall about laughing?
There’s no guarantee that Rudd will get in but Beazley won’t and someone needs to get in and do the hard policy work to reform our creaking dinosaur of a party and give us some bloody direction. And shaking up the front bench is a start.
Apparently Gillard is in, and I think that seals it, they have the numbers. Rudd as leader, Gillard as Deputy, Beasley in defense, Garrett in Enviro/water/energy, Macklin in health? Albanese in employment……….yada, yada…
Here’s what Rudd had to say:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1802260.htm
I wish it was the other way round – Gillard/Rudd.
Surely Macklin’ll win deputy, Phil?
What possible reason would anyone have for voting for her, wbb?
But what about the uber-talented Laurie Ferguson?
Hey, don’t overlook the People’s Choice for the Totally Fucking Useless Logie, Lefty E: the Kim Carr/Ursula Stephens duo.
Oh Great, Dolly Downer gets into the act.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20852846-5005361,00.html
Labor policies important, not leader
December 01, 2006 01:18pm
FEDERAL Labor should concentrate on developing exciting policies instead of its leadership tussles, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.
Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd today confirmed he will challenge Kim Beazley for the Labor leadership, with health spokeswoman Julia Gillard running as his deputy.
Mr Downer said Labor would remain unelectable until the party developed exciting policies capturing the imagination of the Australian public.
“The public elected (former Labor prime ministers Gough) Whitlam and the public elected (Bob) Hawke because they had exciting, positive and original and creative programs,” Mr Downer said.
“You can change the leader or you can keep the leader, but if the style of the Labor party is just carping, negativity and retrospectivity, it’s becoming a retro party which is interested in trying to rehabilitate the past.
“If that’s all the Labor party is about, well it won’t matter who they put in as the leader.”
And Harry Quick’s call for Beazer to quit politics if he loses the leadership proves he’s a relic and I’m glad the dickhead is retiring at the next election.
The Commonwealth Bank AWA’s are the acid test for workchoices.
If the CBA staff bail up & refuse to sign, it will be a major political blow for the government.
Of course, if the CBA staff DO sign, (significant pay rise is the carrot), then the sky had better fall in on them within a year, or the anti-workchoices mob are really going to have a real credibility problem.
You mean, Mark, that the reasons they voted for her since time immemorial no longer hold? It’s a whole new age, then.
So, Downer is mouthing the Govt’s early talking points, it the party not the leader. They don’t want this no matter what they say.
Funny thing is that Labor has been laeading for months on the 2pp, so by Downers stupid reasoning thatr must mean Labour…………….wins??
Ms LE put this same view to me this morning, Mark.
The reasons for voting for Macklin have never been clear, excepting left faction female seniority, but I think she’s still there because the last round was a ‘don’t frighten the horses’ ballot.
They pick their times to be lairy of change. They could have picked a shining new team then and there!
Anyway, I don’t give rats if this is the right time or not, CHANGE HAS TO HAPPEN. Not just in terms of leadership or front bench positions, but in policy work and party reform.
If that’s all the Governments got it bodes well for Rudd.
The upturned bowl is a winner. All the benefits of shaking it up, bit of youth and energy, and none of the Latham downside – Rudd is more staid, solid, predictable. I tend to think it has to be a net positive for the ALP.
It might even confuse a few FF voters when it comes to prefs. And Im assuming the “must win seats in QLD” factor will play in his favour as well.
Poor ol Beazer, I like the guy: but this is no time to be sentimental!
Phil,
If Beazley loses and hangs around in Parliament it will be a complete gift to the Libs.
If he loses and stays – it will only be because he believes he can still “make a contribution” i.e. be leader again. Result – continuing destabilisation. Being ditched again should give him the hint.
Lynn you are spot on. Every time I hear anyone, especially the Bomber himself say, “in a Beazley Labor Government, blah blah blah”, I p-ss myself laughing, before hanging my head in dismay, like every other progressive in this country, that there is no hope of seeing an end to this soulless government.
Rudd will win the ballot, and win it well. There may be hope yet.
Beazley is the only electable one they have. Rudd is a whiner, and Gillard a hater.
The electorate won’t elect a hater, and though she may cover it up for a time, sooner or later she will show her spots.
Gillard a hater? I haven’t seen that Peter. The worst thing anyone has ever said about Julia is that her fruit bowl looked a bit empty.
I laughed out loud when I read this signoff from Dominic Knight in his SMH Radar blog:
“As [Kim] himself would say, “it’s time we finally bid farewell to Labor’s long-serving Opposition Leader, Ron Weazley.”
Go the Ruddster …
Once Beazley and McKinnon are gone, it’ll seem like none of this ever happened. This is a very clean challenge. Rudd and Gillard will burst from the starting gates. They’ve pondered this moment for a few years now. They’ll get a bucketload of puff-piece media in the summer supplements – and then be all set for a serious assault on Howard. Beazley will gracefully bow out having done his very best for a very long time.
The alternative is unthinkable – a wounded bull in charge.
I’m voting for Kodos.
Wow, cs showed up.
Seriously though, I thought the spill was a dumbassed idea, but now it’s on I think Ruddy/Gillard is my choice. If nothing else it’ll get rid of the NSW right dominance of the fedeal caucus.
Has Rudd said yet he will advise his supporters to vote for the spill of the entire frontbench?
This has to be called, I think, by a caucus vote, not a simple declaration by the leader.
Lefty E:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/12/01/ritual-december-bloodletting/#comment-214582
Weren’t you making a similar point about Labor winning only when it has a reformist platform on a thread here recently?
Now we know why Dolly’s too busy to stop illegal bribes – he spends his days trawling blogs to steal your talking points…
Some media articles that tend to confirm BBB’s idea that big sections of the Right has finally tired of Beazley:
Dennis Shanahan:
and published today, apparently before the challenge was announced:
I’ve heard Lindsay Tanner run this line several times in the past.
David, don’t forget that whoever leaks this stuff to the press has an agenda.
Lindsay Tanner, then, has obviously also been admiring Lefty E’s work. And rightly so.
Speaking of which, where is Tanner in all this leadership stuff? Whose side is he on?
Who gives a toss whether or Kimbo would be a ‘great prime minister’? Seriously, I don’t think I’ve heard a less relevant consideration for selecting an Opposition Leader (except maybe, ‘he’ll get high approval ratings’ We all remember how well that worked out last time.)
Interestingly, I’ve seen the point made a few times around the intertubes that Rudd has the numbers and that he wouldn’t have gone for this without them. Monday is going to be a very interesting day. Like I said above, I think I’m for a Rudd/Gillard team, but I would have prefered that this happened six months ago.
What do people think of the timing of this? My initial reaction is that it’s bad, but maybe that’s a gut thing based on the bad memories of Mark Latham’s escapades. Maybe the timing actually is good, it worked well for Latham, it’s just that Latham was a dropkick.
I think it’s a bloody disaster, agreeing basically with the reasons Kim gave in her post.
The word in Queensland is that Beazley has the numbers. It wasn’t a coincidence that the Beazer had a happy snap with Big Bill Ludwig on the front page of the Oz’ website.
I think Rudd will lose – which is probably the worst possible outcome. I’m not enthused about him as a leadership contender, but I can tell you this – the way it’s been played out is going to leave huge animosities simmering, and I doubt he will have the authority to stamp out disunity and dissent.
The best result for the Labor Party, if it wants to win the bloody election, is a big victory for the Beazer.
But I think the whole show might have been handed to Howard on a platter.
Which is an absolute bloody disgrace.
I think that’s wrong. Beazley decided to call on the challenge.
There’s no one backing Rudd who can count.
This is Fitzgibbon’s circus – and Crean’s revenge.
You don’t think the formulation of “the alternative Prime Minister”, as KB likes to use, has any significant electoral impact?.
I don’t think the timing is a problem unless Howard calls an early election, which he won’t, and I don’t see why so many people are so nervous about this. I think your summation of the Latham situation is apposite
I don’t think it is leapership challenges as such that weaken the standing of the party, it is all the behaviour around the challenges. These challenges are never pretty, but so far this seems to be being handled as well as any, and there’s plenty of time for the dust to settle one way or the other.
From Kim’s OP:
Don’t forget Bracks, to a lesser extent Martin and if you want to be like that Keating.
True. In this particular case I suspect it is the pro-Rudd sections of the Right who are doing this leaking.
Thanks for cheering me up, Martin, but of course Latham, having started off as the media’s darling, ended up losing and taking Labor backwards. Though Rudd isn’t a psycho thug, I fear that the Beazer might have a point about experience. The freakin media in this country will get bored after writing “Rudd is the hawtness” stories for three months and start turning a microscope on any misstep.
That’s a fantastic quote. I don’t think that Rudd has ever been called the “hawtness” ever (or eva!).
I’m with you on the disgrace bit. Personally, I don’t mind the Ruddster but my feeling is that this has been really badly handled by all.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the media are attacking Labor as a thank you for Howard giving them what they wanted with Media Reforms ?
And here in WA, Premier Carpenter is backing Kim.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1802444.htm
Mr Carpenter says a Western Australian prime minister would be good for the state and has urged WA’s federal Labor MPs to support Mr Beazley.
“If they share my view, that is that it would be better for Western Australia if we have a West Australian Prime Minister, if they share my view that the federal election right now is there to be won, and Kim Beazley can win it, then I would hope that they would support Kim Beazley,” Mr Carpenter said.
Beattie, of course is batting for KRUDD
Obviously if the disunity continues after Monday then the optimism in my previous post is misplaced.
The federal ALP has work to do to get itself in a postion where it is sufficiently widely considered to be a viable proposition. But I tend to think that that workload is not itself increased by a bout of bloodletting provided that it is contained.
Simple question then (not simple answer though): who is more likely to misstep, misspeak or miss out, Rudd or Beazley? KB’s current form ain’t great…
Hard to know, Martin, because Rudd hasn’t faced the same level of pressure or had to be across so many issues or events.
I agree with Mark it is a disaster and will probably put the election out of reach no matter who wins on Monday.
Listening to Rudd and Gillard talking about Australians wanting a new leadership style and it all sounded so simular to the false dawn around this time three years ago. Maybe they should stop telling Australians what they want and actually find out what they want and then they may be able to win a federal election occasionally.
I don’t know what sort of message this sends to the electorate but they really look like a rabble, no matter which way you dress it up. To think they can spend weeks tearing each other apart and then just return to business as usual when it is all over probably portrays the unreality that shrouds this whole sad episode.
I couldn’t work out for the life of me which way Tanner’s jumping from his Lateline gig tonight. If I had to bet, I’d say he’s going to go with whoever he thinks is gonna get the biggest vote. He’s alright, Tanner. Not leadership material, though. There’s no charisma.
People say Howard’s got no charisma. That’s so wrong.
Howard has anti-charisma, IMHO, wbb. He’s Len the treasurer at yer bowls club, speaking with that sybillant whistle on his ’s’, making you feel time has stopped, and nothing can change and hurt you. He’s the good China set in the tea chest, untouched by hand or time; the lamb roast on Sunday; the squeak on the hills hoist, as every season repeats, never getting hotter or drier.
He’s Australian mainstream conservatism, and he’s a real tough monkey to take down.
But he’s boring as f*ck. Thats his weakness. Someone needs to go him on that score, liven up the stiffs. He would comprehensively lose he next election against a Whitlam, or a Hawke, or even a Keating in full flight.
But I just dont know about Kruddster or Beazbag doing it.
Mark – that would be the 2nd time this year ive agreed with Dolly. Im hoping not to make a habit of it.
But I do wonder- what other, or better forum to express loose zeitgeist thoughts than LP? Seriously, If I was a politico-speechwriter, Id definitely be cruising blogs for ideas.
I somehow doubt Downer’s crew would choose LP though!
“You don’t think the formulation of “the alternative Prime Ministerâ€?, as KB likes to use, has any significant electoral impact?.”
That’s not about “greatness”, that’s about competence, which is one of Kimbo’s two great strengths – competence and familiarity. (and the name mix-ups don;t undercut that. When push comes to shove Australian’s aren’t going to vote against Labor because Kim gets his celebrities mixed up occasionally).
BTW LeftyE, can you remind me what reform platform Labor took to the election in 1983? I seem to recall the reform was sprung on the public after the election and the campaign was all smiley “Bringing Australia Together” stuff.
Still can’t find any clear statement that Rudd will advise his supporters to vote for a spill.
The media seem to be assuming that the spill is a done deal, but Beazley can’t ‘call’ a spill – he can only move that a spill should happen, which would be decided by a vote of the full caucus.
Of course, what Rudd may want is quite possibly not decisive. It’s entirely possible that a caucus member would be prepared to vote for Rudd, but prepared to vote for a spill against Rudd’s wishes.
This article by Dennis Shanahan and Steve Lewis quotes Rudd supporter Joel Fitzgibbon as being angry at the idea of a spill:
and this article from The Age’s Mischa Schubert claims that an un-named, “influential figure” has:
Schubert’s article is particularly interesting, as it specifically looks at the implications of the spill, suggesting that Peter Garrett for one would receive huge support from the caucus right now.
If so, Bob Brown has been his number one publicity agent! Nothing could be more calculated to make the ALP left love you and unite behind you than being hated by a Green…
Since its Right v Right for Leader, and Left v Left for Deputy, it’s easy to imagine that votes will be spraying all over the place in the Caucus room, unlike the old days of factional certainty when, as Schubert’s article says:
But what will Rudd and Gillard do? Attempt to hold back the spill and keep the caucus vote on the Leadership team only? Or accept the chaos of a ballot that will throw up a new, but unstable frontbench?
Interesting DJ.
One of Rudd’s supporters could press for an amendment to the effect that the spill be restricted only to the positions of Leader and Deputy Leader.
If that’s voted down it’d be interesting to see whether the Beazley forces would progress to the nuclear option of a complete spill.
The trouble for Rudd and Gillard is that they’d already thrown their hats into the ring.
I’d be difficult for them to support the amendment but then vote against the nuclear option. If they’d lain a bit low they might have got away with allowing Beazley to be seen as a panic-merchant and egoistical spoiler.
No, the Rudd forces will have to vote for the nuclear option.
Rudd and Gillard can hardly present themselves as a generational change and keep the deadwood on the front bench. So one way or another I’m assuming that there will be front bench renewal.
I’ve never had much trouble with Beazley. What he says is always clear to me. The policy work he’s done is under-appreciated. He’s out-campaigned Howard twice and has a fine oratorical turn when the occasion demands.
The negatives include making policy within the kitchen cabinet and a tendency to compromise principle for pragmatism at times.
But the press and a fair proportion of the people, including people on this thread, have decided that he’s a vacuous windbag, so sadly we’ll have to let him go.
Gillard as deputy, whoever wins the main job, would be an improvement and there will surely be improvement in the front bench.
I’m nervous about Rudd in the main job, partly the lack of a common touch, although he is a courteous, polite and nice man apparently who arose from struggle street. But mainly because he may find it hard to bring his caucus enemies in behind him.
Beattie thinks Rudd can win seats in Qld where Labor holds 6 out of what will be 29. If he can win 6 or 7 in Qld and not slip up majorly, Labor might be a chance.
WorkChoices stinks. There was a story on the 7.30 Report on Thursday about the Workplace rights advocate investigating youth employment conditions in the retail industry, where the employers seemed as guilty as sin. Youth employment in retail has an extensive reach into the community.
But it could all turn on what dirty tricks stunt the Libs come up with this time and how well Labor can counter.
I also tend to think the next labour PM will be Garrett. I give the current stoush slightly to Rudd, just on freshness, and the fact that the media wont be bored for a good couple of months. Plus he’s got a story to tell – I liked his piece in the monthly, and there’s a narrative there to get out.
My issue with Beazer is strategic. He’s pretty much pinned the lot on IR, and while I support him there, is not an enough of a vision, or for those unfamiliar or hitherto untouched by WC – it will look like a backward step in one area, however welcome, is all he’s offering. Where the rest of the reform package he’s offering?
Daryl – my memories of 83 are rather dim, but Hawke was pushing “concencus” style policy in the mdist of a lot of industrial conflict, and not just on IR – economic policy more broadly. So “B.A.T” had some upfront content. Yes, the Accord itself was later, but the policy emphasis was out there. Plus Franklin – that was pretty huge, and very cotnroversial then (back in those says when states still existed!). Plus revamped medicare. I tend to see that as enough to constitute ‘bringing a reform package’, especially by the standards of today’s meagre fare!
The Accord was negotiated before the 83 election, Lefty E, and was a centrepiece of Hawkey’s pitch.
Right, ta Mark. Id personally call that a “reform agenda” worth the price of entry.
Like to see what Rudd’s got in the bag. Im sure he’s thought about it. I wanna see some next generation labour ideas! Pity he’s such a technocrat in style.
From what’s been said publicly anyway, I think Tanner’s been the best forward thinker – perhaps Rudd will reach into his box of tricks?
Thanks lefty and Mark. I didn’t mean to suggest there wasn’t a reform platform, but I wasn;t sure how extensive it was – certainly it was a lot less than we actually got!
I remain unconvinced about whether or not Labor “needs” to have a raft of policies to win from opposition. They’ve only done it twice since the Great Depression and that’s a pretty small data set to get a trend from. As you’ve probably guessed, I’m with Peter Brent (Mumble). I really don’t think voters care much about policy per se. A change of government requires that marginal voters have to be a bit sick of the government, and that they’re not worried that the alternative will make such a mess of things that they’ll have to sell one of their investment properties.
Maybe Rudd and Gillard can tell the sort of stories marginal voters want to hear, and for God’s sake I hope they can. But I worry when I hear talk of the need to ‘take the values fight to the government’ or ‘reaching out to asperationals’. They’re constructs of the Liberals that serve the purposes of the Liberals and it’s beyond counter-productive to charge in and reinforce their frames.
Yea, CS! On the right team IMHO. Any chance of coaxing Plibisek over?
“Once Beazley and McKinnon are gone,…” You’ve forgotten her name already WBB? I guess it does confirm she hasn’t had much impact.
I agree that Rudd will have no option but to go along with the general spill. It need not be a negative apart from being unable to deliver favoured treatment for some mates. But it may lead to a greater recognition of talented but numberless MPs like Emerson and Tanner. And the women from some of the marginals… Why don’t they caucus as a group? There’s some serious talent there which may boost overall stocks.
Noel Pearson on Rudd;
And this from a man who had many fights with Rudd.
Rudd was an absolute bastard to work with but there is no doubting his intellect. And I am told (reliably) that his interpersonals have improved enormously. But then again there was great room for improvement.
I liked Noel Pearson’s article. He makes a great point about Rudd’s intellect, a quality so lacking in many politicians. The prospect of a truly intellectual Labor leader is tantalising.
“The prospect of a truly intellectual Labor leader is tantalising.”
The prospect of Mark Latham as leader was tantalising too…
Yeah, it’s Rudd’s intellect which is the biggest turn on for me. How that might be relevant in an election campaign, I’m not sure, but it can’t be a negative.
Why do people keep bringing up Emerson’s name as a talent? Honest question. All I know of him is Lateline interviews – and he has not impressed.
That’s because Hawke invented the “budget black hole” non-core promise!
I still have to say that I don’t understand the level of despair. As discussed above, yes, the Latham Experiment was ultimately a disaster, but surely the problems were neither that there was not enough time, nor that the disunity of the party brought it down. Latham clearly established a leadership profile (with buckets of time left over) and the behaviour of the party (albeit from sheer deperation) was pretty good.
If the protaganists can continue (relative) restraint in their criticisms of each other, and if the party can pull together whoever wins – and OK, they are pretty sizeable “if”s – then there really is no reason this should have significant long-lasting impact.
What is the potential media grab that the Libs will be able to use in the next campaign against one or other to really discredit them? I haven’t seen it all, but so far I don’t know that there is one.
The ALP has to get to a perceived level of competence. That’s a substantial amount of work. But if they do get there, then the election becomes about Howard. The ALP won’t win on bonus points, they just have to (clearly) pass the threshhold test and then take the Libs down.
(FWIW I actually think that either Kim or Kevin are capable of this so I don’t think the result of the next election hangs on Monday.)
There’s an interesting discussion between these. This game is so much about perception – perception of your team, perception of their team, perception of the media, perception of the public, your perception of the perception of the public…
No, noone (of any statistical significance
) reads through the policy statements before making a decision. But that’s exactly why slip-ups like KB’s are so damaging. No-one gives a damn about what Kim thinks of Rove – but if he can slip up on something so trivial then what else is he going to get wrong… It looks bad and that’s as bad as it gets.
You’re wasted in academe, LE.
BTW someone pointed out to me that anyone who supports Rudd because they think he will deliver a more progressive platform than Beazley has rocks in their head.
A valid, and I think accurate, call.
And at the risk of violating frequency of comments policy, let me finally add that this most definitely not the dreaded “small target” strategy. It is important to carry a distinct, discernible, positive policy precisely because this is how the ALP can look competent.
Hasn’t anyone forgotten that Beazley is a Rhodes Scholar ??
Also the West Australian “Newspaper” is behind the bomber for obvious reasons
To me, KRUDD reminds me of one of those old-time preachers and a dead ringer for Tony Jones of Lateline.
I wonder if this is to target the female voter, ie Rudd is cute and smart, as opposed to Beazley’s Girth.
WBB your question>
I have worked with Rudd and I have worked with Emerson. Most of Emerson’s recent ‘work’ re ‘Learning or Earning’ etc is anything but original. In fact, I can’t think of any original work Emerson has done of recent times.
When he first came to Queensland, it was at the time of the Goss government. He was supposed to be the ‘pea’ to be the DG of the Environment Department. He didn’t ‘win’ the original merit selection process. The Minister at the time, Dean Wells, was told by Goss to run it again; and Emerson was told to take the process seriously.
Emerson then became the DG.
When Goss was in deep political trouble (the electorate, particularly the public service didn’t like him) Emerson took leave to work with Goss. Emerson is very good in the PR department. He ‘humanised’ Goss but it was too late. Goss lost and Emerson was unemployed.
His Lateline interviews were terrible. At that stage he had ambitions to be PM.
He did support Latham and earnt the condemnation of Bill Ludwig.
I note now he is in the Beazley camp. Politically, he has been a bit late. But in my opinion, there is no strong ideological conviction; he is a ‘politician’. If you research his relationships his ambitions will be evident.
Summary: Not in Rudd’s class, but politically he is very able at the interpersonal level.
I hope that adds to your understanding.
I think it was when Beazley was contesting the leadership with Latham when he admitted that he had erred with his small target strategy and that Labor should focus on policy in four main areas – health, education, the economy and the environment. Of course that’s too boring for journalists.
If you want to accuse him now of being lazy on the policy front you need to check out and critique his blueprints, his policy speeches/releases and those of his shadow ministers. But that is maybe too much like hard work for commentators, or even blog commenters.
I note that they are a bit short on foreign policy and trade at this stage. What have you been doing, Mr Rudd?
Yes it does, thanks for that, VOC.
The Rove thing is silly.
Howard has set the tone with leaders having a view on everything. Beazley was probably told by an adviser – “Rove’s wife has just died of cancer – you should say something – Howard has”. Is it really to his massive discredit that as a pollie he might have thought of Karl Rove? Is it compulsory for him to be reading glossy mags and watching channel ten talk shows?
Just askin…
I couldn’t find them on the net, but I think someone should check the Caucus rules. I suspect the Leader has the power to spill all the positions without a motion. Therefore the Rudd forces would have no choice.
And what Brian said about policy.
I can’t find a copy of the caucus rules, but Beazley’s statement reads:
which suggests that a spill needs a majority vote of full caucus to set it off.
In Chapter 6 of The Whitlam Venture, Alan Reid says:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20863085-5005361,00.html
I’m so sick of this already. The whole thing is one gigantic balls up. All that I’m certain of is that I don’t actually like anyone on offer that much at the moment. Bloody Labor, talk about eating your own.
Then again, maybe I’m just in a bad mood because it’s a Saturday and I’m stuck at work.
whoops forgot to add the text
Tax cuts for child care ‘tipped’
December 02, 2006 10:25pm
Article from: AAP
THE childcare system is on the verge of major reform with tax deductions tipped to be introduced, as federal politicians examine a plan this week.
An 18-month government inquiry has found the system in need of a big overhaul and many key Liberals have demanded change, Fairfax newspapers said today.
Under the proposed reforms, child care would be tax deductible and fringe benefits tax on the service would be wiped out.
The inquiry, chaired by federal MP Bronwyn Bishop, recommends other big changes.
Child care provided by employers, including salary-sacrificing arrangements, would not incur fringe benefits tax.
Child care not located on an employers’ business premises is subject to the tax – a major disincentive to employers wishing to help working parents.
The changes are expected to cost billions of dollars.
Hmm, this sound like a diversion to wedge the ALP on ??
It is rather co-incidential that it’s happening the week of a leadership challenge.
The plot thickens.
Fair enough, David.
mick, I’m not at work and not in a bad mood but really pissed off by it all too.
Still, with the spill thing, should be a separate issue – get the ambitious tempted, and they’re going to vote for it regardless of who they’re backing for leader.
God Kim, I’m glad you aren’t at work! What time is it there?
I’ve been out on the intertubes arguing about all this with people and the only conclusion I’m coming to is that they all suck. I’ve tenuously supported Rudd, but I really would like to give him a swift kick in the head. I’ve seen people put a convincing case that Rudd has been given airtime and failed to impress anyone other than the easily impressed (I guess like me). Beazley on the other hand has had heaps of time to get his image to improve and has failed to do so. Really, I don’t know who to back, I keep swinging between the two. I’m glad I’m not in caucus and my job doesn’t depend on who to back…
mick, same time as the timestamp on the comments!
I think it is the case that a “leadership Challenge” happens when 30(?) members of caucus sign a petition, a special meeting is called and there’s a secret ballot. But a “spill motion” is moved and carried in a caucus meeting on a show of hands and the subsequent ballot(s) are by show of hands as well.
The differing implications of the two methods are left as exercises for the readers.
I don’t think the ballot for the shadow ministry could be by vote of hands, Darryl. I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. All the ballots are secret – for leadership as well. The point is that you have to show your hand (literally) to force a ballot if the leader doesn’t bring one on.
They should put the bloody caucus rules up on the web.
An article in the Oz by Sam Maiden (not online) suggests Rudd agreed to the spill of the frontbench, but wants it at the regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday after the special Caucus meeting on Monday.
The interest rates scare campaign was outrageously silly and empirically unsupportable.
Conventional wisdom is that it had an impact.
Just sayin’
Any chance of coaxing Plibisek over?
The challenge is a complicated matrix, given the front bench spill. Faction leaders (actually, they are all sub-faction leaders these days) have to secure their own caucus positions and negotiate their portfolios all the while simultaneously working the leadership numbers. In opting for one leader or another, they may find their faction splitting underneath them; in securing their own numbers, they may find themselves forced to a different leader, or putting their portfolio at risk, etc. At the same time, opportunities for kingmaking etc will likely loom.
Re Plibers, my guess is that her position in support of the Beazer yesterday goes to these underlying and overlaying complexities. It seems clear that one of the key inside contests is between Albanese and Garret for the position of the frontbench environment shadow, and my guess is that Plibers is working for Anthony. If Anthony moved to Kevin, Plibers and the rest of his support would move, and it’d be game over.
The Ruddster, a cautious man, has claimed the numbers in the latest battle of the press releases (read: “I’m ahead at this point”), while the Beazer is pleading for a “fair contest” (read: “I’m now playing dirty”). The chicken gizzards at this point thus appear to favour the Ruddster. In the same release, Kevin has sharpened the Garrett-Albanese battle, which seems close to the nub of the tensions:
Mr Rudd said Peter Garrett, Labor’s parliamentary secretary for reconciliation and the arts, would be promoted to the frontbench under his leadership.”He has a bucketload of talent, a bucketload of ability,” Mr Rudd said. “Let me tell you, he’ll be up there in Labor’s frontbench team.”
Remember, the vote is already being counted, and Monday’s meeting really only amounts to a deadline. If it becomes clear earlier that one candidate has an unassailable lead, the other may well withdraw to save the humilation of a ballot.
Go the Ruddster …
I think I read somehwere that the front bench vote was done on the preferential system. So you’d have to find out who was running and organise a ballot paper. This together with seeing who won the leadership positions first would make Rudd’s notion of delaying the front bench vote for 24 hours seem sensible.
This quote from what should have been a perfectly routine puff-piece sounds a bit bitter.
From The Age: 20 things you need to know about Kevin Rudd
Interesting analytical article called “The Lady in Red” at stoush.net re Rudd and Gillard:
this quote starts with a description of today’s Sunday Sunrise interview:
Thanks for that insight, Chris. It sounds complicated, but it may lead to a break of the traditional mould in front-benchers. Who knows where that will lead, but I’m hoping some of the rising females may get up. That alone will give hope to the ‘fresh approach’ mentioned.
Re Garrett- Albanese, maybe Ruddster ought to find room for both to stitch up some more votes.