It’s back to another round of Labor leadership speculation, and, inevitably, the first name pulled out of the bag is that of Kim Beazley. I’ve made all the usual arguments against him too often to repeat them, but there’s a new one that I think is relevant.
On current indications (these could change of course, but they’re what we have to go on), Labor is unlikely to win in 2007, so a successful appointment as leader would need to serve two terms in Opposition before becoming PM. Presumably, the party would want at least the option of two full terms from their leader in these circumstances. So, we’re looking at electing someone who (if successful) might still be leading the party past 2015. Beazley is 56 now, and not, at least in my perception, a young 56. Leaving aside the fact that (IIRC) Labor still has compulsory retirement at 65, can anyone see him as a credible leader for the next ten years and beyond?
Of course, that’s his whole attraction for quite a few of his backers. He’s a safe choice, meaning that he’s pretty much guaranteed to lose and go quietly after the next election, allowing a comfortable ride for [insert preferred name here].
It might be objected that John Howard was the same age when the Libs elected him leader, and that turned out well for them. But the electoral position was much more favorable and, after the demise of Hewson and the failure of the Downer-Costello dream team, there was no real alternative. In any case, Howard is, and always has been, a much more substantial figure than Beazley in all but the most literal of senses.
Labor isn’t short of options. I favored Rudd last time around, and I think he’s probably the right choice this time. But I’d also be happy with Gillard, and there are a string of reasonably able candidates who might turn out well, either in the long-term or to hold things together while the party recovers from the last election. Finally, although it’s looking unlikely that Latham can hang on, I don’t think he’s done a bad job in the circumstances, and if he does manage to recover in both health and political terms, I’d be glad of it.
John Quiggin 
I’d be prepared to wager that Latham’s health is a lot nastier than what has been let on, despite denials.
It fits with the “holiday with the family”, rather than resting at home.
Latham appears to have made implacable enemies within the party and they and the media will not likely give him any chance, even if he does recover.
Agree Beazley is not up to it – he was a better Minister than you give him credit for, but like Hayden lacks the guts for the top job.
Gillard sadly, is from the Left faction and therefore unelectable. Rudd has the best mix of talent and temperament. He lacks salesmanship, but is good on the attack. It would not be a bad thing for Labor to have a leader of constant and general capability for a few years, and he would be a good match for Costello.
Swan is transparently an operator, and if a rooster has to be chosen Smith is a better bet.
Frankly, the first bout of pancreatitis and the lack of alcoholism made me suspect cancer. That would have meant the ALP was being thoroughly dishonest, running someone with a few good months in him yet querying Howard’s chances to cut it over the long haul.
I put that aside on hearing the explicit denials of cancer, not because I believe what I am told but because I thought not even the minders would be so stupid as to tell a lie that would inevitably be exposed by another bout of sickness shortly after.
It may be that I was wrong. It may be that ALP management was both incompetent and dishonest with the Australian public. But in that event, how would a change of leaders be an improvement if it’s still the same old ALP, in its projection accusing other parties of the very offences against integrity that it feels sure all are guilty of since it knows its own guilt?
Rudd for Rudder
While Troppo Armadillo has pioneered a new form of direct democracy through its advice to the Labor Party to pick either 1. Julia 2. Rudd for Rudder (thanks, FXH) or the other way round, the blogosphere primary is now well…
John, did the comments from the old post on Beazley disappear into the ether?
I think this was the time of the Great Database Catastrophe, Mark. Dozens of comments were lost, though I’m sure Echelon has them all on record somewhere.
If you ask me Rudd will be the next Labor PM. Even if he doesn’t win this time I don’t think that any of the rest of them are likley to win the next election and it will probably fall to him. Gillard seems competent but Rudd is the only ALP contenders that I have seen give a constently strong performance over a reasonable strecht. The other contenders just strike me as party hacks.
Latham is a liability and must go.
Beazley’s recall would be an admission of despair.
It’s time for the ALP to embrace generational change. And while they are changing personnel they ought to make radical changes to their public face. This may be difficult because changes to the public face of the ALP may necessitate changes to its operational culture and perhaps even its constitution.
The media, increasingly networked and increasingly centralised, is increasingly dumbed down. the media have little interest in understanding and still less interest in explaining the intricacies of ALP decision making. The media have taught popular mind to like the metaphor of the captain leading a unified team. Regular and constitutional ALP debate looks like dissent and white-anting. Branch-stacking and factionalism look like mafia tactics. A clever conservative like Howard can feast on the prejudices mobilised by media interests eager to defeat the ALP.
The Parliamentary leader of the Federal ALP, therefore, needs to steer a narrow course between being grey and nondescript (Crean) and a boofhead (Latham). Several state Premiers have mastered this trick (Beatty, Bracks and Carr). But the job is tougher for the Federal leader, perhaps because voters expect Prime Ministers to be more ruthless in their foreign policy, security and finance functions than ALP leaders want to be or are allowed to be by their party. The ALP is much more naturally suited to the parochialism of state responsibilities, and the voters reward them for it.
If there has to be a change in leadership, I think Rudd is the man for the top job. Like JQ, I would also be quite happy for Latham to stay on provided he can get back on top of his game again.
You wouldn’t think so from his presentation, but Rudd comes from an impoverished rural background. Like Latham, he got where he is through strength of character as well as talent.
Rudd for leader. Gillard for deputy. (Jenny Macklin must be the most vacuous deputy leader in Auatralian political history, which is saying a lot.)
This illness is the major factor in his predicament, but it’s set against his prior brush with a malignancy. His response has been complicated, also, by a) his state of mind as result of the defeat and b) a determination to give his boys a holiday.
That is, the right medical advice after the initial bout of pancreatitis would have included warning about likelihood of recurrence. And a sensible person in his position would have been prepared to act decisively if there was a recurrence within the subsequent 12 months. He could have played out his exit quite skilfully. Now it’s too late, he is in a deep hole. At the first twinge of pain, he should have been onto his deputy, and discussing his condition with his team. He chose to keep it quiet. If that is the denial part of the process, what’s next, counsellors?
Maybe this is divine retribution for the shafting of Ivan Molloy with that piece of panto about Milat. Never mind, the predators have tasted blood, and will dispose of him swiftly – piece by piece. Jump the sharks, Mark. It’s over.
I can’t help wondering if perhaps Latham’s illness is not just physical. The election loss must have been a devastating blow to a person like him.
Kim isn’t a winning option, but of course the safe one. Labor has traditionally turned to women when the sh*t has really hit the fan, so perhaps Gillard is a chance on that basis. I like the idea of a Rudd/Gillard combination, but it could be a Melbourne Cup field to look at, as there will be a fair few names in the hat. Latham appears guilty of too many poor judgements, so he is either badly advised and/or too full of himself. I think he would have made an interesting PM, but it feels now it would have been more in the manner of a Gough rather than a Bob or Paul and Australia probably doesn’t need that right now.
Above all, it would be nice if the factions could put their self-interest to one side and think about the whole, but socialists sadly don’t seem able to do that effectively and would rather own 100% of nothing than risk that and have a 50% chance to own something.
Ray
Bob Carr at first seemed an unlikely leader for the same reasons as Rudd: not even warm let alone charismatic, a bit too intellectual. So maybe it’s worth giving Rudd a go. Theonly alternative is to bring Peter Beattie to Canberra at the first possible by-election.
My god, some of the best prime ministers in Aus & UK have been over or close to 65. No wonder that the Labor party is in trouble.
Rudd for mine. He’s fairly unflappable and good natured as his regular media banter spot with Joe Hockey has demonstrated. As far as media ‘sex appeal’ goes Howard certainly didn’t have it nor needs it. The ability to evenhandedly manage a team is the foremost prerequisite, whilst growing comfortably into the position like Howard has.
Lithium was always a Keating type head kicker. In that regard Keating has left Labor with a poisoned legacy, which the Latham hand wrenching reminded everyone of, particularly women. As for Gillard, unfortunately she looks like a fishwife, while Macklin looks like everyone’s mum. As a result neither will appeal as PM material. Unfortunately looks are important. It was a problem for our ex-Liberal Premier John Olsen, who had a shifty look about him. As a result the smoko room referred to him somewhat unfairly as ‘the used car salesman’.
I dont think the leader of the opposition really matters. Unless it is a drovers dog election then they wont get elected. I think it is an incorrect assumption that the opposition has a genuine chance at being elected to government at each election. Statistically, it seems that until the government has been in power for at least nine years, the elections are no-contest and go to the incumbent. I dont think the leader of the opposition matters – except to media punditry, who like to focus on the celebrity of politics.
Gillard has everything except a good voice.
She and simon crean have the most annoying voices in the ALP-makes her unelectable I reckon.
Rudd is intelligent but boring (speaks like a public service memo) and I suspect most of the voters that Labor needs to capture wouldn’t understand him.
Cameron’s position implies that a better Opposition leader would have made no difference in those elections won by the Government. What about Menzies’ win over Calwell in 1961, Keating’s win over Hewson in 1993..?
Kevin Rudd is competent and experienced. He was on Wayne Goss’ staff and was head of the Queensland Cabinet Office while Goss was Premier. His main problem is his relationship with his colleagues and his disloyalty.He along with Stephen Conroy was one of the main leakers to the press as to what happenened in shadow cabinet- especially when Crean was leader. And he hasn’t hesitated to trespass into other shadow’s portfolios. So his colleagues don’t trust him. But if he controls himself and shows a bit of loyalty I think he will be elected. I think it will be Beazley/Gillard initally and then if they fail at the next election Rudd/Gillard.
Latham: Keating Mark II (i.e. arrogant, smart a—, ambitious) and therefore impossible to sell to voters, especially Labor-minded ones. His days as leader are numbered.
Beazley: Likeable, competent, but also cautious, flip-flopper. Likely choice whose job will be to stop the rot and restore some sense of unity.
Rudd: Boring. Reminds you of the daggy uncle who regales you with inane stories at family gatherings. Little factional support means he’s little chance (unless Beazley dies anytime soon).
Gillard: Hardly the left-wing radical the Right makes her out to be, but if Labor’s Medicare policy was a failure, she is partly to blame. And she’s a woman…some won’t like it.
Swan/Smith: Experts at the cliched sound bite. Typical Labor functionaries whose beliefs (if any) aren’t exactly clear. No real chance at the top job.
Bob Carr: Is in danger of going down as the premier who presided over the collapse of the public transport and hospital systems in NSW. If these problems aren’t fixed soon, NSW voters will never support him federally (and Carr is smart enough to know it, and won’t try).
…At this rate, the ALP would be better off dusting off Gough Whitlam, or finding a way for John Curtin or Ben Chifley to come back from the dead. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating need not apply.
“It’s time for the ALP to embrace generational change.”
Huh? they embraced genrational change for Latham and it just didn’t wash over with the (generally older) one nation voters – who were unfortunately the key to the election.
Look at the stats, a 4% decline in One Nation vote went straight to the Coallition, Latham couldn’t pickup any of those votes, But an older leader, perhaps?
Rudd is a nerd, i’m sure he is competent, and it could be said he most resembles howard out of all the contenders.
At the last ballot I was supporting Rudd. Beazley was damaged by his handling of the 2001 election which alienated many left-leaning voters which went to the Greens. His handling of the Tampa issue is hard to forget.
I always admired Latham with his ideas, it was a hit and miss proposition and it missed.
However, after a demoralising defeat (which BTW was not a ‘disaster’ I still think the ALP can win in 2007 if its get its &%$#@ together) Beazley may be the only choice. He steadied the ship very well after the 1996 landslide and this is the sort of skills that the Federal ALP needs now.
For what it’s worth, as I’ve said on numerous occasions in other forums, Labor is suffering a number of deep-seated problems which go to the heart of its identity and mission as a political actor, and therefore, insofar as the leader can make a difference to these problems, they need to be somebody with ideas of their own about what the questions are and how they should be tackled, and also a capacity to engage in authentic dialogue with others in and around Labor to find answers. For these reasons Lindsay Tanner appeals amongst the names that have been mentioned.
Also, I don’t know what Observa means by his reference to Julia Gillard “looking like a fishwife”, but I must ask why the appearance or persona lives of women in the ALP are still considered relevant to their fitness for leadership or responsible positions when similar considerations aren’t canvassed in relation to male aspirants. Does anybody care if Kevin Rudd looks like Harry Potter, Mark Latham looks like Dilbert or Kim Beazley looks like the Abominable Snowman? Or that Beazley and Tanner have been married twice and three times respectively?
Not my terminology Paul but from the smoko room. I gather it refers to a fishmonger’s wife who hangs about cold fish all day and starts to look like the stock. A more literary term might be ‘harridan’ and could well apply to Bronwyn Bishop too. I must admit I can’t recall seeing either of these two crack a smile, let alone a decent belly laugh on the Teev, can you? They may be really nice people in the flesh but that’s not what the punter’s see on their news. It’s not just women who suffer from this perception as I said with John Olsen.(smarmy was the word I was looking for) You don’t have to be picture postcard material but you can be fatally flawed. Peter Beattie has the warm all Australian look cf a more bird like Bob Carr but both are successful. Amanda Vanstone is no lithe model but she comes across as sincere and friendly from time to time. Someone should tell Gillard to smile occasionally and get her to the hairdressers quicksmart for a warmer style. A Lady Di cut perhaps? Swallow your pride Julia. Howard looks like your typical businessman but that’s OK. OTOH MrsO calls Pete Costello ‘smirky’. He’ll have to work on that if he’s to be PM long term, with the benefit of the women’s vote.
“therefore, insofar as the leader can make a difference to these problems, they need to be somebody with ideas of their own about what the questions are and how they should be tackled, and also a capacity to engage in authentic dialogue with others in and around Labor to find answers.”
That’s the crux of it for Labor. With the big questions going unanswered from both the Majors, the discipline and experience of the Coalition makes them a lay down misere, for voters faced largely with Tweedledum and Tweedledee politics. Labor are still stumbling about in the dark looking for the Holy Grail of the Third Way. IMO and with the benefit of hindsight, the only thing that Latham offered Labor was a sense of nostalgia for the past, with a double dissolution and sacking on the cards. As their State colleagues are alert to now, the brand name is suffering.
A fishwife was a fishmonger in the days when that was a woman’s trade (the men being out fishing); the suffix “-wife” is the older use, meaning “woman”, as in “housewife” or “Wife of Bath”.
Working in the wider world like that they got to give and take with the best of them, and their reputation was for coarse language, not coarse looks. I suspect that the original reference was to Julia Gillard being of the abusive ALP school, not to her looks – and that certainly is a valid criticism to make of her, if true, even if it was expressed in that particular way.
Looks like Bomber is back despite John’s advice. Beazley’s Back, Boys….
Oh well, it should make the WA election a bit more interesting. It was going to be a boring walkover otherwise.
Wow. I just can’t get over the fact that labour is seriously considering Beazley again. After 20 years in politics, that fat bastard still looks like an amateur! It’s incredible. Beazley, Crean, Latham were all destined to fail. Latham was the closest thing to a real candidate ALP has come up with in a long time, but still he was too rough around the edges (read – a rude loudmouth) and lacked the charisma to get the job done.
At this point in time I’m thinking ALP should just give up – send anyone with a higher ranking position than janitor to a firing range.
Really… how long will they keep up this effort to not achieve anything? It’s a national disgrace.
PS. Calling Beazley a fat bastard is a fair comment. Anyone who is considering being a leader of the people should be phyically as well as mentally fit. Otherwise he will just look like another spoilt, binge drinking, rotten politician.