Simon Crean has gone up a bit in my estimation by announcing his own spill rather than waiting for the Beazley push to organize one.
I’m not a huge Crean fan, but he has at least tried to put forward an alternative some of the time. When the best his enemies can come up with is someone who was an undistinguished minister, has already lost twice, contributed nothing to the policy debate in six years as Leader except the phrase “small target strategy”, and has contributed nothing more in two years on the backbench, I can’t believe the Caucus will be stupid enough to change leaders.
A decisive win for Crean could really turn things around. Labor is already close in the opinion polls and there’s now a Liberal leadership story to absorb the attention of the many political journalists whose approach is that of the gossip columnist. A strong focus on issues (Medicare in particular) could have Howard regretting his decision to stay on.
John Quiggin 
Has Crean said he will spill the leadership positions? There is this from his press conference today (via the SMH):
No spills, no requirement for petitions but a circumstance in which the membership of this caucus determines it and puts to an end the stupidity that’s been going on.
And this from Kitney’s column:
Crean yesterday gave a very clear indication that he had no intention of doing any such thing. “As you know, the rules are there,” he said. “If people believe that there needs to be a change, they know how to act in accordance with the rules.”
Crean stands a better chance if he refuses to spill his position, as the leadership contest will have to occur via a caucus resolution by show of hands, and many Labor folk just don’t like ratting on their leader as a matter of principle (which holds even more firmly when the rats will be known by the show of hands).
Alternatively, if Crean himself initiates a spill by declaring the leadership vacant, there will technically not be a leader and the thing will go straight to the secret ballot and a much more uncertain outcome.
I am undecided at present whether Crean is a Downer or Howard like Opposition leader.
Beazley did somewhat easily beat Howard in each campaign which suggests if all Polls are correct (Libs51: ALP 49)the ALP would win the next election,
However I am very confident Crean would do the job in a campaign as well since the expectations on him ( very low)and Howard ( very high)would be unsustainable.
The ALP does have a reasonably talented frontbench and I don’t think Beazley could get more out of them thsn Crean.
However I ainting voting in Caucus so let sit back and se who wins.
I had forgotten just how much Beazley irritates me, and never more than when some journalist mentions he is prolix and he takes it as a compliment. I’ve got the message – he said again today with his phony self-deprecating grin – I’m going to keep it simple – as if the challenge is just one of remembering to descend to the level of his audience. He genuinely seems to believe that his tedious verbiage is an indication of great intellect and erudition when in fact it’s exactly the opposite.
Yes, what has Beazley been doing, apart from enjoying cigars on his porch? If he wins, the first barrage of boof from his mouth will sink him forever. Even if he has learned to be concise, the replays of him in khaki and wearing that slouch hat on his bonce will provide hours of merriment.
The result of the tussle better be a decisive win for Crean – a 60-40 win will be disastrous. With a 70-30 or better, he will be able to spill some blood – pity it won’t be those tired old ex-union hacks. Life on the opposition backbench must be pretty sweet.
After the electoral bloodbaths in ’67 and ’77 the ALP opted for bastards (Whitlam/Hayden-Hawke) who were prepared to crash or crash through, purge the organisational deadwood and re-think the stale bits of the ideology.
The biggest mistake the ALP made after the ’96 bloodbath was to pick Beazley as the conciliation-nice guy candidate. Instead the ALP have treaded political water for the better part of a decade.
Howard’ personal appeal lies in his doggedness. His strengh has been the professional ability to convert his ideological convictions into political realities through brilliant tactical exploitation of crisis-moments (Port Arthur, Timor, Tampa). Timing is everything in politics, humour and sex.
But it may be that Howard’s politico-cultural moment has passed. I have a feeling that the foreign security issue is off the boil, terrorists and rogue states are not going to be news over the next year or so.
And Howard’s success has cut the ground from under himself on the domestic identity agenda. He has shifted the political culture to the Right. Identity politicians and political correctness are a joke, the Republic has been sunk, ATSIC is on the nose and the boat people no longer have an effective constituency. In short there are no more votes to be won by tacking to the Right on Culture. I don’t see the ALP giving him any free kicks in front of goal on that score.
His poor handling of the GG issue indicates that he has lost some of the sureness in his touch. And the scandal of Ruddock’s class-corrupt handling of Asian visas is a mirror image of the ethnic-corrupt Theophanous affair.
Yet people prefer Howard as PM, and the Liberals front bench as cabinet, owing to their personal strengths. Were the ALP to produce a leader and cabinet of comparable personal strengths, who had distanced themselves from identity politics, they would romp home.
If government’s lose elections I guess the ultimate question is: why would the marginal median voter shift from the Libs?
The only way that Howard can lose is if a recession-induced collapse in property prices reveals Howard’s boom was based on funny money.
The more I think about it the more it looks that the fed pendulum will swing back to the Left. The fact that a dud like Crean can be leader of the ALP and yet the ALP can still be ahead on the polls indicates that, given the steam has gone out of identity politics, the ALP may have the edge on class politics, ie social equity.
It has to make a positive case for socialised community services, and show that the majority has a lot to lose if Howard succeeds in dismantling public health. In short, the ALP must creat a “moral panic” over Medicare.
If the ALP does not do that, then high property price consumption levels will probably see Howard fall over the line.
Beazley reminds me of the “fat cat” thing of the 70s, he’s just way too self-serving (IMO of course). Crean has all the personality of a wet dishrag. *shrug*. If the Federal elections are about personality, Labor needs to go with Beazley, if its about trying to get something done for the people of Australia, they need to go with Crean. Either way, if they win, it will be because the libs have lost.
[disclaimer] I dont belong in either camp. I am one of the ubiquitous swinging voters.
Re my above query, unlike yesterday’s reports, today’s SMH suggests Crean will declare the leadership vacant:
Mr Crean, after enduring months of damaging destabilisation, called on the vote, saying he would declare the leadership open on Monday week and allow a secret ballot to “put an end to the stupidity that has been going on”.
This will free up the vote appreciably, and particularly in an environment distinguished by the unusual fact that the factions are all over the place. I’m not sure it will be the best decision, but in such a free and ill-disciplined contest, I predict the Big Man will win comfortably.
Beazley has his faults (his boyish enthusiasm for defence toys is more worrying to me than with his prolixity), but he’s the only credible alternative to Crean at the moment. Unlike Crean at least you can think of him as PM without being reminded of Billy McMahon. He also has brand recognition – a factor not to be underestimated.
As I’ve said before, the ‘small target’ strategy was deliberate – based on the circumstances of the time. It wasn’t an innate feature of the man and I doubt he’ll try it now.
I think that’s sharp dd. I go further … and think the challenge is an organic development. There is no fairness in this, and I include the unfairness of being undermined by your own colleagues.
Yet, whatever the detail might suggest, the broad problem is that Simon Crean has not taken over the leadership position. Specialists will argue, but to the public at large, the opposition comprises everyone who was there before, minus Kim Beazley. Simon hasn’t added from where he was before; we’re just missing the other advantage the ALP had. If Simon can grow into the vacuum, well and good; otherwise … if you can’t go, get off the pot.
All of this means that the challenge is a good thing. Inner pressure is producing a put up or shut up for inner colleagues to consider. Let’s try to embellish it with a debate about what Labor means, or should mean, today.