With the news that Kim Beazley now has the support of 18 per cent of Australian voters, relative to the solid, but still unimpressive, alternative of John Howard, hasn’t the time come to bring his sorry political career to an end?
After a ministerial career distinguished only by longevity, and a series of failures as Opposition leader, the one thing Beazley had going for him was his reputation as a good bloke. Whether or not this reputation was deserved in the past, Beazley has trashed it by his support for the vindictive purges organised by the Victorian Right against independents and Latham supporters. Typically for Beazley, having done the wrong thing, he couldn’t even deliver the goods, as Simon Crean managed to convince enough of the voters stacked in by Conroy that they should think for themselves.
My first preferences for a replacement are, not surprisingly, Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard. But I’d settle for anyone (except Conroy, I guess) who could muster a majority of the Caucus.
John Quiggin 
Labor under Beazley’s leadership (if you can call what he provides “leadership”) is a dead loss. For the good of providing an effective opposition and potential alternative government, the powers within the ALP need to put their differences aside as best they can, come up with someone effective they can live with – maybe not their preferred choice, but Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard strike me as the only two current possibilities, give them fairly free reign to choose their frontbench based on talent not loyalties, past favours and paybacks, and back them 100%. Beazley is yesterday’s man and should be consigned to history, allowed to retire gracefully from Parliament at the next election – he has nothing more to offer.
At this stage in the cycle it would be cruel to hand the reins to anybody else. They would be doomed to failure much as Latham was.
Apparently Howard once had an approval rating of 18% during one of his goes as leader of the opposition.
Leadership problems and factional intrigue are part and parcel of life in the ALP.
While problematic, and are covered in detail in the press and the blogs (including our own), the problem for the ALP is:
– approx 5% unemployment,
– 5.5% interest rates,
– stable AUD, and
– good economic conditions.
It’s hard to beat those ‘beautiful set of numbers’!
Following on the ABC.
.
They are out there, aren’t they. Along with the rest of the party. It’s a long way back from there, guys.
WbW, there is of course CAD = 7 per cent of GDP, but no-one worries about that, do they?
Here’s some ranting from a semi-outsider:
I have been able to observe Australian politics for 1 year now (that’s when I arrived) and my esteem for Mr. Beazley has been shrinking ever since. What I hate more than bad politicians is politicians that can only criticise policies and act re-active without offering sound alternatives. Beazley’s comments allways seem to be starting with “John Howard….” or “Peter Costello…” and ending with a statement on how bad this is “for the Australian people”. But never have I heard a good alternative for the big issues (like the industrial relations issue). Sometimes (only sometimes), the Howard government does identify the right issues, usually they only come with the wrong solutions. That’s exactly where the Labour Party should come in and provide coherent solutions according to a (contemporary) social-democratic perspective
What the labour party needs is a thrustworthy leader with a social-democratic, liberal-progressive programme based on a coherent world-view. I would say that Kevin Rudd fulfils the 1st requirement (although a female prime minister might be refreshing). For developing a coherent programme they need a ‘thinker’. Something like what Giddens was for Blair and what Fukuyama was and Kagan is for Bush. Even though I might not like their policies, they had a vision (although Bush’s vision is rapidly falling apart). And that’s what the Labour party needs as well. But then based on social-democratic and liberal-progressive principles.
Professor Q,
For economic illiterates like me, could you describe what a CAD is?
CAD = Current Account Deficit
Gillard is a show pony. She seems singularly unimpressive on the policy front. I like the observation (unattributed): “Julia Gillard has risen without a trace”.
Rudd is too removed. A bit too much like Barry Jones Jr.
Peter Beattie is about the only person (nationwide) I’d even consider voting for in Labor (on the basis of personality only – I’d never vote Labor on the basis of their current policies).
CAD=Current Account Deficit:
Eric Says:
There’s usually a place for presenting well thought out alternative policies, but in some cases Howard and Co present ridiculous solutions to non-existent problems. Industrial relations and the Iraq invasion are classic examples. The correct response to both is to argue that they are unnecessary and counterproductive, i.e. that the sensible alternative is simply to not do what Howard proposes. Beazer presented this argument on industrial relations, but couldn’t seem to be bothered with Iraq. He’s pretty much useless.
The trouble for Kim Beazley is that he has no credibility as a leader. He is full of bluster on a number of issues but even when he says he wil speak simply, he comes across as a hopeless windbag. He could have stepped in to manage the fall out of the factional challenges in Victoria and perhaps redirected some of the challengers to Liberal held seats. However he stayed away and looked weak.
If he was Prime Minister material he would make sure that the party stays on track but instead he helped ensure that last week his party made the news not the Liberals like Nick Minchin or those trading in AWB shares.
Julia Gillard will not be given a chance as even those on her side of politics have attacked her for her Hair. Australia is sophisticated enough to have a female PM or a female Governor General. The matey old blokes of both Labor and Liberal will try to make sure that we have neither.
John’s looking for CAD problems when there is a widespread investment boom going on throughout the economy and SJ is looking for an economy about to go into recession just as unemployment goes to record lows and commodity prices power ahead. Wishing for a recession? Why?
Could it be that political judgements here are clouding the clarity of economic vision?
We’ll all be ‘rooned said Hanrahan. No we won’t, we’re doing well. Not eternally but things look very positive. And as long as brovver Kim remains on 18% approval rating it should be full steam ahead.
Harry Clarke Says:
I would heartily agree with this sentiment, but have a bit of a giggle about your impression that the clarity is on your side.
“Looking for” is your term, where I’d just say “looking at” or “presenting evidence for”. However, the Harry Clarke/John Howard alternative of pretending that uncomfortable facts don’t exist, is well, just sad.
Just how long was Menzies in for anyway?
You are so predictable SJ. What’s the problem with an investment boom and record low unemployment and booming commodity prices? The problem for you, is that the economy is doing so well that daft Laborite nitwits won’t be given the helm. But I am glad you had your giggle even if it was at my expense – for people with your kind of sadistic economic impulses, a ‘giggle’ is social-welfare improving. Will you do tricks for two iced vo-vos? When were you introduced to leather?
Harry, there wouldn’t be a problem if the claims that you made were actually true.
Claims like “boom” and “booming” are relative and at least arguable, but when you say “record low unemployment” you display a dismal ignorance.
Unemployment pre-1973 was sub 3%. I don’t claim that that’s the record, because I don’t have the earlier figures easily at hand.
Those who are entirely ignorant of the lessons of history are blissfully unaware that they’re making complete gits of themselves. Or something like that
Measured unemployment hasn’t been lower for 25 years. And yes it was lower during the Menzies era. Lets bring back Ming. Oh, bugger it, I forgot, he’s one of those bloody Liberals.
Where’s the ‘dismal ignorance’ and who is the ‘complete git’? Bye SJ, I am wasting pixels on you.
You know, a lot of the things said about Beazly here were said about Howard in eighties and large parts of the pre-96 nineties.
I think the reality is that it’s very hard to look good in opposition. I’ve never seen anyone do it. Maybe Whitlam did between 1969 and 1972, but I’m too young to remember that. Latham looked good for the first month or so, but then it all went pear shaped. Howard *always* looked crap as opposition leader.
Having said that, I’ve always been a fan of Kevin Rudd.
However, my fear with Rudd is that he will take Philip Adams’ advice and try to be more “normal”. That would just come accross as fake. Rudd is a nerd’s nerd and he shouldn’t run away from that. One of Howard’s PR strengths is he plays up to his boring-as-batshit image, rather than trying to counter it. Rudd should play up to his “I know my shit better than anyone else in the room and I can answer impromptu questions in perfect sentences” vibe rather than trying to be blokey or coloquial.
I would love to see either Rudd or Gillard as ALP leader. It would take all the pressure off the Coalition when JWH retires.
“Could it be that political judgements here are clouding the clarity of economic vision?”
Harry, you can easily check that I’ve never been a believer in the “consenting adults” view on current account deficits. I disagreed with (strong versions of) the Pitchford argument back in the early 90s, and I still disagree now.
BTW, let’s try to keep the tone a bit more civil.
Why not? Seems to be a reasonable theory to me.
What causes it in Australia? My armchair economist’s view has always been that the latest round is caused by housing price inflation and hence is underwritten by the Australian banks, which, given the low domestic savings rates, are presumably floating that debt on the international markets one way or another.
It is true that house prices are artificially high, driven primarily by the State Labor Governments’ almost universal penchant for reducing supply in the name of some misguided greenie argument. But unless the States turn around tomorrow and remove their development restrictions, we’re not going to see a massive deflation in the price of the existing housing stock.
So we’re probably looking at a decade or two of stagnating house prices, which means once the current crop of house owners have spent their extra equity on consumer goods, the CAD should rebalance somewhat as the highly indebted owners pay their debt back down.
Ultimately, the CAD seems to be just a symptom of people borrowing against the future to find their lifestyle today. Not an irrational thing to do given that economic growth effectively discounts the cost of debt incurred today, and since “in the long run we’re all dead anyway”.
Harry Clarke,
For further study see Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, etc. around this time nine years ago.
Majorajam, There are elements of the comparison that are similar but most are not. The Asian economies were involved in a real estate bubble with underdeveloped banking and capital markets – this does not correspond to the Australian situation.
BTW John I don’t see the current account deficits as entirely benign either. But nor do I see them as a total negative. We are enjoying a broad-based investment boom as the RBA and others have recognised. Historically we have financed such booms with high CADs.
I can see why people may see Gillard as a potential liability as leader. her accent and her unmarried, childless status may be logically irrelevant,; but I hate to admit they *might* hurt her electorally.
But what’s wrong with Rudd? He’s smart as hell. He performs well in the media. He has experience in government as Director-General of the Queensland Premier’s Department under Wayne Goss, he’s a committed Christian (not that that should matter, but given the current climate, it might) and he has what the Americans would call an inspiring life story.
If Australia can elect a boring-as-batshit suburban solicitor as PM, surely it can elect a nerdy swat?
What sort of slap on the wrist would you expect if you lost a preselection challenge against a sitting federal member of parliament? Well, Martin Pakula (who failed to oust Simon Crean) looks to be given an upper house seat in the Victorian state parliament.
To add icing to the cake, he will replace Sang Nguyen, who campaigned hard in the Vietnamese branch stack (I mean community) for Bill Shorten to win preselection in Maribyrnong.
Read all about it here.
I’d rather have a “boring-as-batshit” solicitor than a psycho Christian fundamentalist!
I think the more substantive economic policy is pretty much the same under most shades of politics. The differences from either side when in power amount mostly to playing around at the edges, influencing only the colour and shade of much of national policy (the meaner stuff more recently in things such as work for the dole, versus some of the generous welfare spending undertaken by previous labor governments). The major reforms would have been undertaken by either side, on advice from largely the same economists. The obvious case in point is microeconomic reform – undertaken by Labor but claimed by the Coalition. The other faffing around at the edges has until just recently been all small fry, when the IR reforms were introduced. While driven by ideology and unlikely to have as big economic effects, I think this is going to have lasting cultural effects. A permanent imprint in the colour and shade. I guess we ultimately have to wait and see though.
This distinction also explains why labor and anyone else find it hard to look good in opposition. It’s because the ideology (rather than the economic policy) is necessarily out of fashion at the time, and there’s little objective basis (such as economic gains) on which to demonstrate your policy is better. The key to getting back into government is figuring out how to change what’s in fashion. John Howard certainly never looked good in opposition, but he eventually managed to convince people that he did. And then he cemented in people’s minds a connection between the ideological policies and the big welfare gains, which is a connection that may or may not exist.
“I’d rather have a “boring-as-batshitâ€? solicitor than a psycho Christian fundamentalist!”
…kind of like that quiet man next door, was always so polite, he kept to himself…I never would have picked him as an axe-weilding maniac/child molester/suicide bomber…
Kind of sums up little johnnie.
Harry Clarke,
I wonder how the developed Australian banking system will respond when all the untold, untoward monies piling into Australian paper meet with margin calls? Could be they’ll find even the most ‘advanced’ finacial institutions struggle when their capital margins evaporate. My advice to investors: keep one eye on the BOJ and the other on the chair you hope to land on.
I never picked up the “fundamentalist” vibe from Rudd. He’s always struck me as more the earnest, reforming Christian type – a lot like Beazley, really.
Maybe I’m wrong. Anyone want to point me to evidence of Rudd as a crazed fundie?
Our house watched Gillard on Aus Story, and though I like her and she comes across well, she never ever seemed to spell out what her values were. Not once. Maybe that is the nature of the show, but after we’d finished watching our immediate impressions were of a person who’d been a politician all her life, with no experience outside of that, so we thought it was even more important to tell us what she believed in.
What is wrong with Lindsay Tanner? He doesn’t get mentioned as a potential leader. Seems a bright chap. Is he not a sound media performer?
In their March 2006 Discussion Paper “The distribution of top incomes in Australia�, Leigh and Atkinson at the Centre for Economic Policy Research (ANU) state: “At the start of the twenty-first century, the income share of the richest 1 percent of Australians was higher than it had been at any point since 1951, while the share of the richest 10 percent was higher than it had been since 1949�.
Yet another indication of the growing inequality of Australian society. Harry Clarke, we don’t need to wait for a recession – lots of Australians are having one right now.
“The key to getting back into government is figuring out how to change what’s in fashion. John Howard certainly never looked good in opposition, but he eventually managed to convince people that he did. And then he cemented in people’s minds a connection between the ideological policies and the big welfare gains, which is a connection that may or may not exist.”
Econoclast, I agree with part of your analysis.
During the 1996 federal campaign Peter Costello was far and away the most effective campaigner. His entrapment of Beazley in defending the lie about the dimensions of the federal deficit was a piece of dark political genius.
Costello was able to assure skittish Australian voters that, if Beazley’s assurances about the federal deficit were correct, then Australians could feel relaxed and comfortable about a change of government.
Beazley was in zugzwang. Costello turned his lies were turned to effective political use. And he didn’t have the guts to tell the truth.
Given the opportunity to govern, Howard has demonstrated to perfection the intrinsic power of incumbency. But by himself Howard was insufficiently dynamic to combat Keating.
No, I’m never going to learn how to code this stuff!
In their March 2006 discussion paper “The distribution of top incomes in Australia�, Leigh and Atkinson at the Centre for Economic Policy Research (ANU) state: “At the start of the twenty-first century, the income share of the richest 1 percent of Australians was higher than it had been at any point since 1951, while the share of the richest 10 percent was higher than it had been since 1949�.
http://cepr.anu.edu.au/discussionpapers.htm
Yet another indication of the growing inequality of Australian society. Harry Clarke, we don’t have to wait for a recession, lots of Australians are having one right now.
The problem with beazley is the attacks upon him, not attacks upon labor but him
“stand for nothing”
“windbag”
etc
that has finally sunk into public consciousness and are dismissive of him no matter what his says because the public think to themselves “I’ve heard it all before”
It is my opinion that labor v. liberal as PMs are now elected on personality
So on the back of these two facts Howard will be perceived as a better PM
Apart from a major government stuff up which could be in the works, the only likely things to save Labor atm is if a) Howard goes or b) Beazley goes
That said with the 3 months rumour about Beazley we’ll see but then again there was a rumour about Howard stepping down in March, this March
So I think its likely that Beazley will not go until after the next election
as a sidenote: the liberals keep most of their factional fighting inhouse – that’s the key difference between the two
Is it possible for anyone to name one country where the general public is really concerned over their CAD ? I can’t, and it is easy for me to think of places where it should be.
Also, I’m not sure the term “concenting adults” is a good one, unless concenting adults = Hu Jintao, the Saudi Royal family, and a few of the other OPEC countries who allow the current financing of the Anglosphere.
I think Beazley did a good job in his first term as opposition leader. The party was shattered and he held them together. His job was to score more than 50% two-party preferred and he managed that. Not his fault that the party machines, particularly in NSW, could not translate that into enough seats to win.
However, since then he has got steadily worse. His failure to back Crean against the stackers was outrageous – he must know he is better off going into this election with at least one experienced shadow minister, but either personal animosity to Crean (for what?) or trembling before Conroy caused him to refuse to move.
I share the view that Gillard has been in politics so long she doesn’t know what she stands for anymore – her close alliegance with Martin (there is no Greenhouse) Ferguson and Michael (trash the trees even if there are more jobs in saving them) O’Connor deeply worries me.
I suspect that Rudd is deeply conservative on some points, but overall I think he has a lot to offer, although the Liberals will probably run the line the Republicans now frequently use – we don’t want someone that smart in government.
If you google you get some very interesting articles and interviews. He nominates the early presbyterian founders of British Labour as some of his heroes – aswell as their Australian eqivalents. That’s a tradition that I may not subscribe to, but it’s one I deeply respect.
Sure, he’s likely to have grave doubts on issues like abortion. But how likely is that to matter given the party’s he’s in? As to things like work for the dole, etc, which are often associated with the “muscular” Chritian Left, I’m sufficiently conservative that I’d support them if they could be made to work as anything more than window dressing.
In my previous post “he” is Kevin Rudd. Sorry.
the ruddmeister is a anglo-catholic. Not even in the evangelical school let alone fundamentalist one! Learn to understand what you are talking about.
Harry we have had 5 quarters of a CAD over 6% of GDP when Commodity prices are at their peak.
The last time we had an investment boom like this was the early 1980’s and that was on the end of boom that never happened.
given that bond yields have been rather low perhaps some of this investment has gone into speculative ventures that wouldn’t have gotten a look at if yields were higher?
I’m a card-carrying Howard hater and even I agree Beazley lacks ticker. The only time I recall any real passion and genuine anger (as opposed to that treacly Parliament panto stuff) from Beazley is when he lost his nut one day at Alan Jones. The world stood still for a moment, it could have gone either way. But rather than hold that deadly combo of ice and flame, he reverted to type and fell back into shucks and chuckles, ham acted outrage and endless explanatory windbaggery. More fool him.
At least Rudd in his long running war with Tony Jones, has the cojones to lob one back occasionally. Beattie gives me the pip, he gilds it a touch too much, but he is canny enough to outsmart Howard on the hustings, even with an unsympathetic media, a hurdle Beazley doesn’t even bother trying to jump any more. It’s fast becoming Anyone But Beazley. (Except Wayne Swan. Oh and that Conroy bloke. Better stop there)
Bring Back EP at LP Says, that was waht I was getting at – though I didn’t know whether Rudd was a non-Sydney Anglican or a Uniting Church type.
I hope it wasn’t me you were admonishing to “[l]earn to understand what you are talking about.”
Bring Back EP at, that was what I was getting at – though I didn’t know whether Rudd was a non-Sydney Anglican or a Uniting Church type.
I hope it wasn’t me you were admonishing to “[l]earn to understand what you are talking about.”
“You know, a lot of the things said about Beazly here were said about Howard in eighties and large parts of the pre-96 nineties.”
Anyone else remember how Bob Carr’s public perception tended around once he won office?
The principal problem for virtually every Opposition is that they are – the Opposition. Just ask John Hewson.
Harry: Could it be that political judgements here are clouding the clarity of economic vision?
Harry, you mean like assuming the current expansion, unlike every previous one in history, will continue forever?
Howard and Costello (I mostly credit Costello) have been pretty good economic managers – but they had the benefit of a generally benign external environment. (You can’t really credit Howard with the full decline in domestic interest rates when interest rates worldwide have declined.)
The unmarried, childless = unelectable equation for Gillard is surely the bleating of sheep. A few years ago it was held that divorce was the politcal equivalent of plague bubones. And, we were told, the public would never regard a female news reader as authoritative. I think if the Hindu masses of India can give a landslide win to a party headed by a Catholic Italian woman we can trust the Australian polity to vote according to criteria other than base prejudice. Most Australian families contain the products of divorce and unconsecrated unions, so Gillard’s status is hardly beyond the experience of the majority.
I’m staggered that only one person has mentioned Lindsay Tanner. Possibly the most gifted individual in the Australian parliament. Would make an outstanding Prime Minister. Question is, does he have the numbers to have a decent tilt at the leadership?
Travis,
Unfortunately, ability as a PM very rarely corresponds with the ability to organise the numbers – at least in the ALP. The list of ‘leaders’ in the ALP I think bears this out.
I’d agree with the Gillard/Tanner ticket. A neat mixture of old and new labor. Personally, even though I’m no Crean fan, in the 2001 election he seemed the only one in senior position in any party (exception again = Bob Brown) who conducted himself well.
I don’t agree that criticism of Beazley is similar to that directed at Howard. The big criticisms of Beazley – “no ticker”, “stands for nothing” – were never thrown at Howard in opposition, except briefly in the leadup to 1996. Howard has been something of a trimmer in office, but there’s no comparison with Beazley on this score. I defy anyone to point to anything he’s stood for consistently, other than the proposition that Kim is a good bloke who deserves the top job.
Travis is right to mention Tanner. He’s disappointed me in some ways, but I’d still be happy to see him as leader. Also McMullan, Emerson, Thompson, Kim Carr , even Crean again – any of these would be better than Beazley.