Crean has a long history in parliament–Labor and front bench stalwart, past party leader etc. He’s from a stalwart Labor family–Frank Crean’s son (Whitlam ministry), David Crean’s brother. He’s never spent a day on the back benches until now, in all his parliamentary career, and you don’t have Cabinet membership under four different prime ministers without having a considerable amount of political nous. He’s one of the respected elders of the federal party; he’s one of the true believers. I think he genuinely believed that the constant rumours and infighting were damaging (he’s right), and that the leadership ballot was the best thing for the party. He’s a seasoned pollie and I don’t believe he’s stupid enough to call for a spill without some assurances that there would actually be a challenger, so Rudd’s sudden revelation that he has the same quantity and quality of testicular fortitude as Peter Costello probably came as quite a surprise. I can only imagine some pretty blue phone calls from Simon Crean to Joel Fitzgibbon, or even to Tintin himself.
The first time Rudd challenged Gillard (February 2012), he got pasted, 71 to 31. He might have looked back at the history between Keating and Hawke (Keating only became PM on his second challenge to Hawke’s leadership; he lost the first one) and thought, “Maybe this time…” but, for whatever reason, he blinked. Whether he genuinely knew he didn’t have the numbers or whether he just wussed it, we won’t know for a while.
But in an interview on 3AW this morning (link to the Australian reporting based on it), Crean says he still thinks Rudd should have run, which argues for the “wussed it” interpretation; that Rudd is now finished as a potential leader; and that this should end leadership speculation. It won’t, not entirely, but it should go underground for a while.
Well, the people involved never do. And most Politicians go in with the best of intentions, but somewhere along the line, at about the point where they are progressing up the ladder at the expense of others, their focus takes a subtle and inevitable shift, and there’s no turning back. If you aren’t selfishly ambitious there’s no point in being in the business, but that’s where it all falls apart.
But that doesn’t get acknowledged as a protest, it’s just thrown in the bin and ignored. If there was an option that effectively said “This is bullshit. Canberra needs an enema” then they might take notice. Though probably they wouldn’t.
Disclaimer: I live in Australia, but I am not an Australian Citizen, so I cannot vote anyway.
Australia has an upper and lower house, the house of reps and the senate.
The group that form government hold the majority of seats in the lower house, the house of Reps, but it doesn’t automatically follow that they have a majority in the senate.
To get legislation passed it has to get through both houses, so you can ram it through the lower house but the senate can reject it.
Usually getting stuff through the senate means compromise with independents or minority parties to make up the necessary numbers, as it’s not a straight 2 party split.
As far as the list of their achievements go, these are overstated.
A drovers dog could have got Australia through the GFC with the economy Labor inherited, and probably would have done a better job at executing a lot of the things they’ve put in place.
Probably not, no. Last time around, it was “I won’t ever challenge again unless they ask me nicely” so I don’t put a lot of faith in him this time either.
Mind you, he’s a lot less likely to be asked in the future, given how he stopped at the edge of the diving board this time around.
I’m not seeing it. Take the carbon tax for example. Gillard pushed it through despite it being political suicide. How does that fit with your theory she is just selfishly ambitious?
The sun does not shine out of politicians asses and I’ve had my personal share of finding out what gets thrown to the wolves when you stand between them and their political ambitions. And obviously some are straight out corrupt as is coming to light concerning some NSW pollies. But overall most I think believe that they have something to offer by way of doing good for the country, and they justify the shit that happens as being an unfortunate means that is justified by the righteous ends they believe they are pursuing.
Gillard is going to lose the election, barring a miracle. She is going to be remembered as a one term PM remarkable for the disjunct between the ambitious and worthy legislative program she was able to push through despite not even having a clear majority in the Reps, and the public perception of her as an incompetent who never got anything done.
That’s a very specific example to counter with. I’m not saying they don’t ever do anything that’s judicious and for the greater good, but beating Rudd so brutally in 2010 says a lot about her ambitions.
While not disagreeing with your initial point (time to practice saying “Prime Minister Tony Abbott”, folks!) I don’t know if the public perceive Gillard as an incompetent who never got anything done as much as they simply don’t like her.
I suspect at this point she could go around giving out ice-cream, ponies and 100" LED TVs to everyone in the country and people would be complaining it was discriminatory against diabetics, cruel to animals and depriving Hard-Working Australians™ of jobs in the struggling manufacturing and retail sectors.
On a technicality, parliamentary parties don’t pick candidates.
The local branch (electorate) of each political party holds pre-selections in every seat. If the incumbent member of parliament is standing again,they typically win, but they are often challenged and sometimes lose.
e.g. Gary Humphries recently lost ACT Liberal Senate preselection
At the preselection meetings any prospective candidates stands up before the local branch preselection committee and gives their “pick-me” stump speech (with plenty of pre-meeting lobbying/shenanigans).
There is often a stoush between the local branch and the state/federal branch if the Feds try to parachute in an “eminent” candidate in over the locals preferences.
e.g. Gillard faces criticism over Peris Senate preselection
So the political party apparatus determines who will be the candidate.
If they win, the candidate becomes one of the parliamentary political party. The relationship between parliamentary party and the political party is often not fully functional.
In the LIBs the parliamentary party has primacy on what happens in the parliament. If the “rank & file” Liberal party branches want, say Australia to sell off some publically owned institution and the LIB MPs make up their own collective mind. The rationale for this is the MP is responsible for the interests of their electorate as a whole, not the interests of the tiny proportion who are actually party members.
The LABs broadly takes the opposite view, though the LAB leaders and MPs have been winning greater control over their affairs since the LABs started winning elections. To illustrate the doctrine at it’s peak was the 1963 photo of Labor leader Caldwell and deputy Whitlam waiting outside party headquarters while 36 “faceless men” determined what policy they would take on US military bases.
I’m not going to apologise for being specific. You seemed to be suggesting that ambition became the be-all and end-all but Gillard, who you are saying was brutally ambitious, used the power she got to do something altruistic which has ended her ambitions. Something about this picture is wrong.
There is too much smoke around the stories of Rudd’s incompetence and nastiness in office for me to think there isn’t a whole heckava lot of fire. He had to go. I’ve read far too much stuff saying things like thisto be able to believe otherwise. And I’m a Queenslander, and Rudd is my local member, and I’m the first to say that from the outside he seems like a nice guy.
I don’t think Gillard did what she did because of ruthless ambition. She’s relatively young and could have bided her time and would likely have ended up with the leadership without having to participate in the coup d’etat that wrecked her personal brand forever. I think she just thought that if the party had decided that Rudd had to go (and he had to go) then she may as well step up. Egotists like Rudd will never go voluntarily. For people like him there is no way to do these things except brutally. It’s just an inevitable consequence of the way things have to be when a Rudd-style leader has got the reins.
I don’t disagree that they don’t like her but really your point is complementary to mine: objectively, Gillard has got a lot done particularly for someone who doesn’t even have a clear majority in the Reps yet she is not perceived this way. When people don’t like someone, they tend not to simply say so because just not liking someone sounds childish. Instead, they refuse to acknowledge facts that don’t suit their prejudice. Hence, I seem to hear a lot of people suggesting her administration is bumblingly ineffective, which is just code for (as you say) “I don’t like her, so I’m sure as hell not going to admit she’s achieved anything”.
This is probably in breach of some regulations, or some sort of record but I going to revive my own zombie thread … for a second time.
It’s on again.
The Victorian Left have woken up to the fact they are as vulnerable as their party colleagues/factional opponents in the NSW Right and have gone feral. Somebody do something … or more specifically Bill, tell Julia she has to go.
Labor has applied the dingo principle … when the chips are down it’s every bastard for themselves.
A second 11th hour change of leader in two terms, bringing back the rooster they tarred & feathered last time has a certain poetic symmetry about it. Of course the Gillard supporters are weighing up self interest vs political patronage. They loathe Rudd with incandescent passion, but with him they are more likely to hold sufficient seats to be a credible opposition. Something to give their future hope in Bill Shorten a basis to build from. They sure as hell don’t want Rudd to win; they’d prefer two terms in opposition to 3 years of Rudd as prime minister. So why would Rudd take up such a radioactive chalice. Dunno, but then I don’t have an ego of intergalactic dimensions either.
All becoming a bit unedifying.
Personally anything that minimizes a landslide is a good thing. The history of governments with unworkably large majorities isn’t good. Too much unfocused and enthusiasm from the newbies . If we have Abbott coming into power with something like an 115-35 majority, to quote Abe Lincoln, there aren’t enough teats for the pigs.
