I see from my Twitter feed that the viewpoint I expressed a year or so ago is becoming more widespread. Of course, it’s too late now for anything but damage mitigation.
Repost follows:
How Gillard could win for Labor
By resigning gracefully. If I were advising Gillard on how best to secure her place in history, I’d suggest waiting until the 1st of July and then making a speech along the following lines
The carbon price, legislated by my government is now in place. It will soon become obvious that the scare campaign run by Mr Abbott and the Opposition has no basis in reality and that our plan will achieve cost-effective reductions in carbon emissions, while making most Australian households better off. I am proud of my government’s achievements in this and other areas. Nevertheless, I recognise with sadness that I am not the best person to take this message to the Australian public. I have therefore decided to resign the office of Prime Minister and advise my Labor colleagues to support the return of Mr Kevin Rudd to this position. Mr Rudd and I have had substantial disagreements over matters of managerial style, but we are agreed on the need for a Labor government with Labor values, and on the need for action in key areas including the carbon price, the mineral resource rent tax and the successful management of the Australian economy. I will give the new PM my enthusiastic support, and work for the re-election of a Labor government.
Would this work? I’m not really sure. But given Abbott’s failure to achieve any popular support at a time when Labor has plumbed unheard of depths of popular support, it would have to be worth a shot. At a minimum, it would help avoid the Queensland-style wipeout that is currently on the cards. And if it worked, history would certainly look kindly upon a PM willing to give up the job for the sake of her party and, more importantly, in the best interests of the country.
John Quiggin 
I am in 100% agreement.
No no no. Rudd = loser.
Bob Katter get ready for my vote so it could be a Queensland thing after all even though I don’t live there. I and many others will not vote for any party that has either Rudd or Abbott as leader. FWIW I think Gillard is one of our better prime ministers who had the misfortune to live in times when people believed hard problems had simple answers.
Dear Hermit,
I think you mistake yourself for the electorate.
I’m with Hermit, would never vote for Rudd or Abbott and I too think Gillard has done pretty well in the circumstances. After years of avoiding them I’m actually going to help the ALP in this campaign but if Rudd gets back in I’ll actively campaign against them, go and help Greens or an independent. The people like you propping up Rudd’s tedious narcisism have simply helped Abbott.
Gillard conspired with the mining bosses and right wing union bosses to dump Rudd and continue to give mining bosses a free pass from a reasonable MRRT (Minerals Resource Rent Tax). Gillard is a traitor to the working people of Australia and a stooge for the capitalist classes.
Gillard has already won for Labor, in that Abbott is going to fail to repeal her policies, as Fraser failed to repeal most of Whitlam’s reforms. Gonski is perhaps the only one that Abbott will successfully nobble in his first term; the rest are either already part of the Liberal platform, or will be protected by Greens in the Senate. And even Gonski seems inevitable now, we just have to wait for the budget position to recover and it will be on the table again.
Rudd succeeded in shifting Labor to the right to wedge the Libs. Gillard has succeeded in shifting both parties back towards the centre. That will be her legacy. Labor’s policies are strongly popular and will remain so, it’s just the leader who everyone seems to want to get rid of.
I would never vote for Abbott or Katter’s Party and certainly not K. Rudd. The caravan has well and truly moved on as far as he is concerned. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. In Gillard, Labor certainly has a tough leader. Labor needs to take the fight to Abbott on policy. If they are going down, then at least go down swinging, and not with a whimper. Meanwhile could someone please lock Joel Fitzgibbon in a cupboard.
the ALP could never win the forthcoming election as Ishow today.
Have you forgotten that they dropped Rudd because he was more toxic with the voters than Gillard. Rudd has lost his credibility by backing down on his signature issue.
Rudd then finished himself off by not having the courage to challenge earlier this year.
Jim,
The ALP was going to win the next election comfortably under Rudd
Nooooo – not Rudd please. He created the original perception of chaos for Labor with his procrastination and predilection for micro-management as PM and then followed that up with his sniping, leaking and destabilisation once out of the Lodge. I would rather have Combet or Shorten who can at least communicate.
I agree, lock Joel Fitzgibbon in a cupboard along with Martin Ferguson.
@ralph These expressions of Rudd horror are a result of media story telling, all the hallmarks of pre invasion propaganda. Kicking Rudd out split the ALP vote giving the LNP a majority for free. Irrespective of Rudds competence the voters don’t like to be usurped by a secret committee, the ALP have only themselves to blame for losing democracy.
Julia Gillard’s refusal to leave looks similar to Bill Clinton’s intransigence after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. His name was mud through which the Republicans dragged it up to the 2000 election, poisoning the rest of his party’s agenda. If he wasn’t such an egotist he would have let Al Gore step up. He didn’t and the presidency was crippled, and then George W Bush was elected.
Likewise in Oz – Gillard refuses to go, obscuring her government’s substantial achievements (NDIS, carbon price) (along with the “Stop the boats” lie), and then in comes a jock*
*GWB and his brother Jeb once beat Chris Evert Lloyd and Pam Shriver in a tennis match – The “W” stands for “Walker”, as in the “Walker Cup” for golf.
@Jim Rose
Can you point to these polls you are quoting that show Rudd as less popular than Gillard?
I actually think Rudd could still win from here. Abbott is badly unpopular, and there are LNP state governments to make a Federal labor government more attractive, but Gillard ann co have certainly done some real damage to the Labor brand.
I could never vote for Rudd, and if were returned as leader my regard for the ALP would be even lower than it is now. As disgusting as Abbott undoubtedly is, if Rudd were to return I really would probably prefer a complete rout to a small loss.
OK … strike out “really” in the above.
I will not vote for any party led by Abbott, Gillard, Turnbull or Rudd. So for a change I agree with a lot of you here. I suspect we may disagree when it comes to preferences. 😀
@m0nty
exactly, and doing things is what government (left government) is about, though the pundits on the sidelines tend to forget it. Gillard, falling way short of the best, has done great, even without allowing for her precarious parliamentary position. And she can still win the election. Rudd = admission of panic, and reversing a correct decision
Maybe Rudd would win, but as a rusted on Labor voter, I’d be tempted to vote for someone else if he is the leader.
I like Julia, and felt that until recently the government was going ok. Now i think they are victims of a campaign of relentless negativity, and are jumping at shadows.
Still, it will be a bad time for the Libs to govern. Things don’t look good, and I reckon they could end up a one term government.
On refugees: ALP = LNP
On Illegal wars of aggression: ALP = LNP
On Climate Change: ALP = LNP
On Murdoch Media Domination: ALP = LNP
On Neo-Liberalism: ALP =LNP
On Torture, Censorship, Domestic Spying, Internet Censorship, Habeas Corpus: ALP =LNP
On Free-Market Being Put In Charge Of Public Health & Education: ALP = LNP
As a “rusted on” human I can’t abide any of them. Rudd was screwed, but he was just as neo-con as the rest of them.
Are any of you seriously suggesting we have a real democracy just because we get to freely discuss whether we would like our arsenic coarsely or finely ground?
Questions for those asserting they would never vote for Rudd.
1. Are you claiming you would abstain or merely that you would not give Labor a first preference?
2. If you just mean first preference, do you understand the voting system? Except in the rare cases where an independent might win, it doesn’t matter who you preference first, as long as you put Labor ahead of Liberal
2. If you really would abstain, how do you justify allowing an Abbott victory simply on the basis of personal dislike? No one I’ve seen has made a case that Gillard is substantially better than Rudd on policy.
To be clear, I will preference Labor ahead of Liberal and, if I thought Gillard had any chance, I would be supporting her (or rather, attacking Abbott) with enthusiasm, despite her terrible policy positions. Since the government is obviously doomed with Gillard in charge, I’m allocating my effort elsehere.
@John Quiggin
I will be voting using the Langer method, as usual. Nobody, will in practice get the benefit of my vote at Federal level (which is why OPV would be better). To be fair, I was going to do that anyway, though if Rudd had been returned I’d have added the descriptors like “ludicrous” and “farcical” to the existing ones {conservative, craven, unprincipled, pro-business, vapid, xenophobic and nasty}
In my case, the change would be moot, since I was planning to vote informal anyway. OTOH, it’s hard to stomach the idea of expressly rewarding the Murdochracy’s trolling of the regime. If you give into bullying whenever it is powerful, do your principles amount to anything at all?
It seems to me that Rudd, and then Gillard had already done that, so the vote was meaningless anyway, but voting for a returned Rudd would simply underline one’s acceptance that in practice, the leadership of the country was a matter of the whim of the dirty digger.
Gillard supporters should remember that at the last election Gillards popularity was not sufficient to form Govt and has not improved over the term of govt. On what basis does Gillard deserve to lead the next Govt?
The long term plan would be to vote for Greens and Socialists and preference Labor 2nd. Each time the Green and Socialist votes lift they gain credibility and new blood. Over time, they could gain critical mass and be able to form a left coalition government. If you keep voting for right wing Labor, extreme right wing Liberal or informal you are pepetuating the current mono-polar neoliberal ideology and dysfunctional, society destroying, economy destroying, people destroying, environment destroying, hope destroying neoconservative capitalism.
@John Quiggin. John I would vote informal rather than vote Labor, if they were to make Rudd leader. To do otherwise, would be to reward Rudd for his treachery during the last federal election campaign, which possibly cost Labor majority government. To vote Labor under those circumstances would be to reward Rudd for his destabilisation of the Gillard government. Having observed Rudd over this period, I have come to the conclusion, it has, and always will be, about Kevin. The fact that Kevin is calling for his backers to “pull their heads in “now, probably has to do with the realisation that his own seat could be at risk. Labor needs to put the Rudd destabilisation and their many self inflicted wounds behind them, rise above the noise and static, and have a conversation with the people as to what sort of country they want to live in over the next decade. Replacing Gillard talking head with Rudd talking head will not cut it. The public are not that gullible.
“to reward Rudd for his treachery during the last federal election campaign”
Say what? You do remember what happened a few months before that. On this score, it’s hard to remember any aspiring leader who has displayed loyalty to the incumbent. It’s always a silly basis for voting, but even more ludicrous in this case.
“Labor needs to put the Rudd destabilisation and their many self inflicted wounds behind them, rise above the noise and static, and have a conversation with the people as to what sort of country they want to live in over the next decade. ”
This is delusional. The election is lost, and no one is interested in a conversation with the current government.
@Ikonoclast
Counterfactual:
Everyone who is
a) left–of-centre
b) dissatisfied with the range of vaguely plausible outcomes after September 14
In divisions where no Green/soc|alists or credible independent could win
elects to Vote 1 Green/soc|alist or similar and then follow the Langer method, putting all the repulsive folk equally last.
They campaign strongly for Greens, soc|alists. Oakey and Windsor in seats where they are a rough chance. If they don’t live in the seat, they donate and support the local campaigns
They write to the press post-poll.
Likely consequences:
A lower house in which there are no/very few ALP members
Informal votes at around 28%
Voting pattern establishes pattern of primaries in favour of Greens/soc|alists and others damned by Murdoch.
Greens are the opposition, but mostly outside of parliament
ALP unable to resist fundamental reform since the bearers of the old “elect a Labor-branded* spiv” have been removed from parliament and the rationale would have collapsed.
As repulsive as an Abbott regime will be, given that this is certain, at least in this scenario, one could hope for something better. The maxim here is that if a perfect solution is not available, then one should act to implement the least imperfect solution that entails no serious wrong. This leaves people with clean hands and scope to argue for a better world.
I rate the chances of large numbers of people acting in concert in this way as poor. Sadly, most people succumb to blackmail.
* these days, you need a magnfying galss to see “labor” on the signs, and also a knowledge that blue signs don’t indicate Liberals.
Excuse me but the first piece of treachery in the election was from the (NSW right)advisors who trashed Rudd in terms of national security.
Rudd then returned serve.
This again highlights how poor political nous both the advisors have and the politicians they serve have
I may be mistaken, but I believe Langer votes are considered informal. Perhaps you guys should check before voting that way.
To pick up on a vibe already alluded to whoever wins gets a poisoned chalice. A spell on the sidelines may be a blessing to serious politicians. While I accept Pr Q’s claim that a minor party vote could be wasted I would like to see a number of of fruitloop candidates elected, independent or minor party. The Abbott government would then struggle with two realities, the fact their ‘serious’ policies are unworkable or unaffordable and an oddball parliament.
When Abbott sweeps to power the boats will keep coming, the climate will keep changing and the cost of living will keep rising. By 2016 if nothing happens in the meantime voters might wonder what happened to the good times they were promised. The conservative media might even turn on Abbott with the same ferocity they have shown to Gillard. I would think forums such as this will be merciless towards the LNP government. Almost a case of bring it on.
According to Wikipedia;
“A Langer vote is a vote marked “1, 2, 3, 3 , 3. . ., etc” (or in a similar manner) in the Australian electoral system. It was widely publicised by Albert Langer,[1] an Australian political activist, as a means of limiting votes to the voter’s preferred parties, and thus avoiding the statutory instruction to mark the ballot paper by indicating a valid ranking of preferences to all other parties and candidates.”
“The Langer voting method was made invalid by amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act on July 17, 1998. A Langer vote is now classed as an “informal” (invalid) vote.”
Thus to vote “Langer” mode is to vote informal at the Commonwealth level. Voting informal is pointless and an abdication of one of your responsibilities as a citizen of a constitutional democracy. You need to choose a “least worst” cascade option for your preferences and channel your primary vote away from the people-betraying neocon duopoly of Labor and Liberal and towards a genuine Green, Socialist or Social Democrat option. This would be one way to generate change over time.
The proliferation of opinion panel television where guests from ideological interest groups are the “educators” for large fractions of the electorate is a bad thing IMHO. The fixation of our MSM to focus on anything but objective intellectual reporting of policy is a tragedy for our nation. The influence of News Ltd on political and public debate is a bad thing IMHO.
Gillard should pass the Prime Ministership to Kevin Rudd!
I think thats called a “hospital pass” in League!
I see you agree with Peter Hartcher of the SMH that its just a question of personalities.
Hmm, the ALP now adding personality politics to identity politics.
As I’ve said before, Gillard’s mistake was to involve the insula rather than the prefrontal cortex when she back-flipped on the carbon tax.
One is amenable to argument, the other is toxic to it!
Again this mock Gillard speech is hilarious, I am just glad that the Liberals are so stubborn that they continue with Abbott. The whole debate that Labor still has a chance is due to the blind faith the Liberals have in this obviously bad appointment.
Again I am not that relieved, as I do not like the qualities of our ‘more than likely’ future PM…. urgh, Abbott.
This is delusional. The election is lost, and no one is interested in a conversation with the current government.
If Abbott ever decided to have a conversation it would be interesting to see what he would say, but his decision to stay away from Q&A is concerning. If he cannot handle a TV show, how will he handle international debates with ‘work hardened’ leaders.
By interesting, I mean to the level of interest a person with no charisma and coughnopoliciescough can generate
Gillard resigning will be like Rudd squibing on the ETS, or the current Labor MPs whinging about possible electoral loss and packing up their offices; its defeatist. And a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The headlines the next day would not be kind; and the fourth estate would go in for the kill on the Labor party. There would be much kudos and much back-patting about how they had it right all along these past three years.
It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. The Australian public expects as much out of their politicians, to fight for what they believe in. To change leaders again and again would be to learn no lessons from NSW and would be the dumbest move that could be made.
the people who removed rudd, supposedly because of his poor polling, are now polling worse than rudd was when they removed him: irony jostles with hypocrisy.
the “good gov’t that lost its way” line is a barefaced lie – rudd was unjustly & groundlessly removed to appease the big miners. i will never forgive (1) the people who responded to the corporate pressures rudd was standing up against by initiating his removal, and (2) those who allowed themselves to be put forward as tools to effect it. they put their country second.
those who gained their position through their own past disloyalty, and have failed thereafter to better advance their cause than the guy they removed, are in no position to call for loyalty. -a.v.
@DavidR
Gillard and Swan held a political gun to Rudd’s head to drop the ETS, he had no choice. The question is (given the level cabinet dissent against him) what was the primary purpose of that exercise? To weaken his electoral support to set up a leadership spill or was it an attempt to gather some lost electoral support from conservative segments of labor or was it purely that Gillard never believed in pricing carbon?
As another one of those poor unfortunate souls that is unimpressed by either major parties and assuming Tony Abbot will win all I can say is that he’ll look pretty silly when the boats keep on coming and those electricity prices don’t come tumbling down.
@ John Quiggin #27 Rudd has had two chances at the leadership, both provided courtesy of Julia Gillard. The first he lost badly, the second he failed to run. The course of action you are suggesting John, I believe would be seen as an act of desperation, rather than a new beginning, by the voting public, and marked down accordingly.
Why so much negativity? Abbott is unlikely to win with a margin big enough to sustain a coalition government for more 5 or 6 elections. Labor or its replacement will possibly be in with a chance of re-election as early as 2030. This may seem like a long time but it if you occupy the time between then and now with winery tours, fishing trips and home renovations it will go fast enough. Cheers.
@Ian Milliss
Hermit thinks he’s the electorate, and Ian thinks I’m the one who behind Abbott killing Gillard in the polls! This is a party and its dwindling crew’s grip on reality?
And for Fran it’s all about herself – her feelings! So better a rout than anything else! One is tempted to say, are you guys for real? But tragically, it seems so.
@alfred venison
Hear! Hear! Well said! Sums it up perfectly. How people can support disloyal traitors and corporate capitalist toadies like Gillard and her backers is beyond me.
beyond me, too, ikonoclast. -a.v.
rudd’s removal has corporate-instigated party-executed coup d’etat written all over it.
they don’t go through the governor general anymore, they certainly don’t seize the town hall.
they control media enough to make it look like party process, while, between elections, they effect regime change with the lights on.
the corporate attack ads against the mrri stopped the same night rudd was removed & the spin we live today began. -a.v.
@Tony lynch
Voting is an individual act. While we can attempt to persuade others to adopt our protocols, the only person for whom we can be completely responsible is ourselves.
If we are to persuade others of the need for a better world, we can’t be joint authors of a dysfunctional world. Our standing to argue the case would fall to zero. Our hands must be clean and stay that way.
@ikonoclast
Amongst our responsibilities is to avoid voting for people we regard as contrary to our values. In addition, coerced voting is a caricature of democracy, and to dignify it with one’s participation would be unethical. The 1998 amendments are a clear attempt to coerce support for the major parties. We are obliged to resist bullying, especially when it concerns a civic responsibility. When, as in this case, the bullying is at the behest of Murdoch, it’s utterly egregious to submit meekly. Historically, people have shown a willingness to jeopardise their lives resisting bullies. Here, some people don’t want to surrender a vote.
There is no ‘least-worst’ option offered. Unless you live in Melbourne or possibly Lyne or New England, your formal vote, however it begins, will elect a man or woman committed to locking up and brutalising vulnerable people including children merely to appease the angts of bigots on the margins of the major cities, in the hope that those bigots can satisfy themselves that vulnerable people not yet here will continue to live in squalor and oppression.
If people want to become parties to that enterprise, that’s a matter for them. I never will.
@Fran Barlow
Well, Fran you set yourself such a high standard you can never vote again, in any polity. Also, you must immediately commit to uncompromising revolutionary action or continuous civil disobedience and direct action or minimally to peaceful passive resistance. But indeed perhaps you have already done so, thus rendering my advice to that effect gratuitious.
@Tony lynch
Whatever you say. Some of us lack your prescience of knowing what’s best.
I vote formally in NSW where OPV applies, I vote Green