It can only be a matter of days
Wayne Swan has said that Kim Beazley will "absolutely" be the leader of the ALP at the next election. As any footy coach knows, this is the kiss of death.
I'm unsure what I think about this. I was embarrassed by Beazley's Karl Rove/Rove McManus gaffe but this seems to be an odd thing to be the straw that broke the camel's back. I quite like what I have seen of Kevin Rudd, but he does seem a little colourless (maybe that is just his complexion).
What I really want is a strong opposition and some excitement back in Australian politics. There seems to be so many people I meet who want someone to really challenge Howard, and even some Liberal voters think that a stronger opposition would mean a better government. I'm not sure Beazley will ever be able to do this. He just can't seem to get "lift off" on any issue.
On the other hand, another change for the ALP might lead to that awful honeymoon period from journos where Rudd can do no wrong, followed by a big let down and a period of disillusionment.
It looks like being an interesting few weeks.
3 comments:
Well, he has to go sooner or later. Kevin Rudd would make a better leader, but I'm not sure he's ready yet.
I would really like to see Julia Gillard in the top job, but I doubt that the federal ALP would have the courage to elect a woman as their leader.
Howard remains utterly beatable and the sooner the ALP actually decides to either support Beazley or replace him with someone they can unite behind, the sooner we will all be able to get on with the important work of getting rid of this idiot government.
INCraig/Ms Batville,
I agree that it seems weird that this is the straw that broke the camel's back (or is it - so hard to tell)...
But agree that Beazley just doesn't seem to do it for the ALP. If he can't win over the faithful, how can he win the electorate-at-large? And if winning the faithful isn't prioritising, what is the point?
I had a lot of time for Mark Latham's policies - some of them were flat out ace (and notice Beazley is now taking credit for some of them, including the Iraq War withdrawal), even if ML a bit "unstable".
But some of his policies were about recognising/cherishing Labor hearts and minds and perhaps focused too much on that to the detriment of taking the community with him.
Or maybe (probably) the electorate/media was so used to Labor playing "me too" to the Conservative Government that them having a progressive policy on the war in Iraq, environment, schools and health just seemed too radical. In which case: again, blame Beazley not Latham.
Do I think any of this makes Rudd or Gillard the more attractive option? Perhaps: but only if they have the FULL support of the Party: Latham's "media honeymoon" wasn't sufficient to carry him through to the election, and I would hate to see Rudd or Gillard's careers damaged by an election loss - they are both too smart and passionate for us to lose them from the lefty side.
I think I need a bex and a good lie down.
One thing Rudd has over the others is his ability to debate, with very little preparation. He does not umm, ahh or but his way through any interview, pre-arranged or not and is always well infromed. He is also often the one who seems to respond or comment on behalf of the opposition when there's a crisis of some sort and Beazley is not around. I'm not too savvy about the politics of politics, but the someone once told me Rudd would never be leader of the Labour party, as he is a Queenslander. They just don't have the factional numbers. Pity. I rather like his unflappable and sensible approach and I kind of hope that he's earned enough respect from his colleagues to get a go at the top role.
As for Kim Beazley, he's just a care taker until the party gets it's act sorted out. It's not the first time he's made a slip, mistaking one person for another. A lack of passion perhaps, meaning he's losing interest in keeping up to date with facts, or is he just past it? Either way, he's less than exciting and thought provoking.
Post a Comment