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 
I mostly agree with Atticus, at least insofar as I too disagree with Phillip Adams’ call for Rudd to transform himself into a more blokey, more rustic, more prone to mistakes kind of guy. Embrace who you are and people will respect that, no matter who you are. I had a lot more respect for Latham when he was a hothead, and he lost it when he tried to be something he wasn’t when leader.
But I wouldn’t give up on Bomber Beazely just yet. The guy has the tools to be a great populist leader of this country. You always look like a mug in opposition, just look at John Howard’s record as LOTO. The ALP are steaming more than they have historically because they are absolutely confounded by the continued success of the man they decades ago dismissed as unelectable. But it will pass and they will galvanise heading into the next election. If Beazely can survive these tough times, they are in with a shot.
And as an aside, lets hope like hell Costello attempts a coup de tat! Who would people prefer? Costello or Bomber Beazely, my inkling the big guy would win on points.
I was prepared to give Kim Beazley yet another chance when he resumed the leadership of Labor in 2005.
True leadership however requires the ability to clearly express ideas and values without creating irritation in the listener or turning them off.
It is when times are difficult that voters look to see qualities of leadership. It is not enough to aspire to be the Leader of the Opposition or to bluster about the other side.
The conservative side are carving up Australian values through their divisive policies which includes importing labor from third world countries, bound like serfs to masters, resulting in the lock out Australian workers. An opposition should be focussing on this kind of issue which has the potential to leave people mental wrecks and in poverty. This is no way for a government to treat its population.
A true opposition leader would ensure that the population understood the evil that has been unleashed in the NoWorkChoices legislation which will turn even good employers into heartless people in their push to survive. A true leader would ensure that the opposition team also understood the importance of keeping internal issues out of the public sphere so that the big picture is aired. Nick Minchin’s push to rob people of all rights in the workplace is only a breath away.
Kim Beazley should be setting the agenda in the values debate as this is an area where the Liberals are weak. The values which allow support for people funding an evil regime and allow the rich and powerful to claim ever more of the public pie reduce us as a community.
Hmm, perhaps it’s not a problem of leadership at all Jill, but management. This post explains it fairly well. http://www.whitepage.com.au/libertas/11765/
The money quote for mine-
“Labor lacks a theory relevant to modern life, which means it lacks insight and purpose.”
Interestingly enough when Labor ditches the class/race divisive rhetoric, rolls up its sleeves and gets on with the job of addressing real, rather than imagined problems, at the state level, it manages leadership just fine.
Observa , a quote from http://www.whitepage.com.au/libertas/11765/ :”.But a bigger problem is that the party was set up to represent one side in a class war that (like the union movement) hardly exists any more” It seems to me with the Workplace Relations Bill that the Liberal Party is pursuing class warfare with renewed vigour. Beazley would make a better P.M. than John Howard. This is not a tough call as a drover’s dog would be a better P.M. than Howard. I am waiting with keen anticipation for his complete disgrace at the hands of the Cole inquiry. Take away all the spin that Howard generates and what have you left : a net negative to Australia.
Declines in the standard of administration, corruption at the highest levels , poor policies foolishly pursued : a real bread and circuses government
Problem is, Bill, they have delivered economic prosperity and maintained the longest boom in many decades, lifting many out of poverty and increasing the wealth of most Australians. Sure, they are not faultless, but this provides a powerful argument to vote for them rather than the mob that can’t seem to stop breifing against each other for long enough to deliver anything like a coherent policy platform.
It is the problem that the ALP will have to address before even looking like a serious opposition, never mind government.
You (and others) can argue (correctly) that the CAD is too high and that there are other imbalances and that it may all end in tears, but it will mean nothing to someone who is looking at the value of their home being twice what it was, having a higher wage than ever (even adjusted for inflation), paying low interest on their mortgage and able to afford a good car, wide screen TV, DVD player and satellite delivered content.
Bread and circuses are powerful motivators.
yeah shove beazley into a cage with 16 hungry interest bears.
It strikes me that the key to Howard’s success was that he was he was not afraid to use the fruits of the economic expansion to increase welfare. If it weren’t for that there would be a quite a large number of economic losers from the current expansion. Its has taken away the economic insecurities of the people Labour would traditionaly be fighting for.
That’s a very astute comment swio.
The Coalition has taken away many entitlements, notably from social welfare and statutory employees’ rights.
The Coalition has partially replaced these entitlements with non-statutory, often one-off, give-aways, special deals and bribes.
And as we have seen, when it turns out that the promises regrettably turn out to be to generous, the Coalition, cuts their promises unilaterally.
It is a testament to the passivity of the electorate and to the incompetence of the Opposition that the Coalition has been able to get away with this shell and pea trick for so long.
Rudd was on the ABC news tonight, calling Howard a liar. I thought “well, that’s a good start – pity none of them had the stones to come out and say it before the bloody election.”
Rudd was followed by the fat, spineless, simpering, useless ass-kissing coward, who said that Howard should apologise to the US. If I’d had a gun I’d have put a bullet through the TV screen.
He’s unfit to represent me, and unfit to represent this country.
“Rudd was followed by the fat, spineless, simpering, useless ass-kissing coward, who said that Howard should apologise to the US. If I’d had a gun I’d have put a bullet through the TV screen.
He’s unfit to represent me, and unfit to represent this country”.
Who would be fit? Charlton Heston? He’d get you the gun.
Or Kevin Rudd? He’s got ‘stones’ and knows how to label people ‘liars’.
Shooting the TV is an Elvis reference.
The ability to call people who tell lies “liars” is a fairly minimal qualification, but at least Rudd does have that qualification.
I suppose Andrew Reynolds knows that the number of Australians living in poverty is not declining (see for example Ch.3 of the report of the Senate Community Affairs Committee, “A Hand Up, Not a Hand Out�, March 2004, at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/poverty/index.htm)
Why, then, does he say that the Howard govt. has “[lifted] many out of poverty?�