Not a trace of ideology anywhere. This Labor leadership contest is not motivated in the slightest by any clash on matters of policy principle. It is purely and simply a debate among MPs about who will best help them keep their job. Concern about who would best run the country is secondary and only relevant at all insofar as it affects that survival question.
A long term solution. Leadership of a major political party really should be too important a matter to be decided on such self interest of MPs. Surely the time has come in Australia, as it has in the United Kingdom, for the wider party to have a say with procedures for calling a ballot set out to discourage the kind of guerrilla warfare that is now going on within the Labor caucus.
The Crikey Indicator moving towards Rudd. If the money does talk then Julia Gillard’s chances of surviving to lead her party to the next election are declining. The Crikey Leadership Indicator now puts the chances of being leader when the ballots are counted at just 30%.
Proving he has changed. There’s a simple way for Kevin Rudd to prove to his colleagues that he is that rare beast of a leopard who has changed his spots. That is to say he will end the practice he introduced so unilaterally in 2007 whereby the Labor Leader has the dictatorial power to select the ministry. Return to the old ways where the caucus did the choosing and all MPs has a vote.
Calling for a spill. Old Premiers are becoming like old Prime Ministers — incapable of fading away. This weekend we had Queensland’s Peter Beattie tweeting that “Julia Gillard needs to call a caucus meeting and resolve the leadership question once and for all or Anna Bligh may as well stay at home.”
This morning it was the Victorian Steve Bracks who turned columnist for The Australian to argue that the only beneficiary from a leadership challenge would be Tony Abbott. Not really much of a solution to the current problems in the advice of those two.
My guess is that both in Queensland and federally the damage to the Labor brand is well and truly done whatever happens to the Prime Ministership.
I wonder if both Gillard and Rudd have crapped their own undies – that there isn’t a “third option” to be sought?
Richard, you wrote suggesting that Rudd:
“…… end the practice he introduced so unilaterally in 2007 whereby the Labor Leader has the dictatorial power to select the ministry. Return to the old ways where the caucus did the choosing and all MPs has (sic) a vote.”
The trouble is many conservative, probably non-Labor, voters really liked the way Rudd told the Labor factions to get out of the way and let him govern. Rudd indulged himself on the day he was elected and now they are the voters who will most support his return.
Sure, it was probably the one thing that really got him turfed out but if he gets another shot he might well take them all out with him next time. Then we’ll know what’s good for the long term interests of the Labor Party.
Rudd’s undermining of Gillard recently suggests that he hasn’t changed in 1 important characteristic, of puting his personal interests above those of his party.
I agree Gavin Moodie. The ALP is in government and has one of the worst opposition leaders ever yet they are still carrying on with all this stuff – one party being held hostage to one man’s ego.
SusieQ, since Labor only has government by the skin of its teeth the ‘loser’ of the last election can hardly be the worst ever. And you’d have to say there’s not much to Labor if it can be held hostage by one man’s ego. One benefit of having Rudd return is that all the back room boys and plenty of ex-ALP media commentators (like Whatever-it-Takes Richardson and Take-What-You-Can-Get Beattie) will be exposed for their hollow selves and possibly drummed out of public life – at last.