It's time to go, Mr Beazley...

I know I am preaching to the choir in this forum, but I believe it is time for Beazley to do the right thing and resign as leader. Failing that, it is the party's duty to remove him. I consider myself a pragmatic leftist and a Labor supporter at heart. I had accepted the fact that Kim Beazley was leader of the Labor party and decided to make best of a mediocre situation. To many, this made me appear a sell-out or something. I assure you, Beazley was not my first pick for leader, but when he became leader I accepted it. I was focused primarily on beating John Howard.

Not anymore!

I have two main problems with Kim Beazley's leadership (or lack thereof):

1. That unshakeable feeling I have that he is just keeping the seat warm for Bill Shorten.

But more importantly...

2. His uselessness. The fact that he can't convince Australia that he is a viable alternative. All he can do is complain about the Government's actions (Very lukewarmly I might add.) Yes, it's good for an opposition leader to be a critic, but that's only half the game. His approval ratings have constantly been hovering around the 25% mark - a fact I was willing to overlook as the party approval was looking good. However, it looks as though he has pissed away the ALP's lead. Keeping him on is just going to assure another Coalition landslide and an increase in the size of John Howard's fat, empty head.

It's time for the party to pressure him to step down and let someone clean up the mess - sooner rather than later. If he wants what's best for his party and his country, he'll do this with as little resistance as possible. If he doesn't go out kicking and screaming, he can be assured that he'll have a nice position in the next Labor government - a high ranking minister of some sort, perhaps.

Realistically speaking, if this happens, the two potential next leaders are: Kevin Rudd of the Right Faction and Julia Gillard of the Centre-left Faction. There are others, but these two have already got a bank of supporters.

My endorsement, both ideologically and practically goes to Ms. Gillard. I believe that we are now seeing two political phenomena occur around the world - the rise (and acceptance) of women to high positions and the pendulum starting to swing leftwards again (still a while to go before it's in full swing, but the conservative movement has definitely peaked.) I do not, however, wish to see her tackle Beazley alone - as, if she fails, an election defeat next year would be blamed on her and anyone on the "disloyal left."

This leads to my analysis of Kevin Rudd. If Someone has to tackle Beazley head-on, I would rather it be him, as it would not be a factional issue. Also, it's possible Labor Unity would have the balance of votes, and I would rather them choose Rudd over retaining Beazley. (God I hate factions! But that's another discussion for another time.) Rudd, for all his faults would be a better leader as he is much more intellectual and charismatic than Beazley. He is, however, no leftist and his attitude of bringing religion into politics does concern me a little.

This move needs to be done very soon (ie. within a few weeks) for the party to be able to move onwards and upwards. A little bit of anecdotal (<--key word there, not scientific) research has demonstrated to me that people are getting sick of Howard and the Liberals, want change, and are primarily concerned about issues that favour the ALP. However, they appear to dislike Beazley and lack a desire to elect Labor. A new leader, with a new vision may inspire those people to actively give this government the boot. Howard is vulnerable, we just need someone who can and will take him out!

After the Latham debacle I could understand why the ALP went for
Beazley - somebody safe and predictable, who wouldn't frighten the
horses. But he's done little more than play Little Sir Echo to John
Howard. When he does come up with something like signing off on Kyoto,
he utters a squeak and promptly disappears from view. He should be
dogging Howard day and night on climate change, IR, and AWB, but he's
leaving most of the running to Rudd, who's making the best of the
opportunity.

I also have hopes for Gillard some time in the future. But the NSW
Right are currently top dogs, and they'll never go for it - even if
they knew she'd likely win. But they'll accept Rudd, and I think a
Rudd-Gillard ticket could be very interesting. Rudd's highly
intelligent, does his homework, and is quick to take the fight to
the Government. He can be a bit pedantic, and his personality isn't
exciting, but then neither is John Howard, and it hasn't hurt him.
And maybe Gillard has enough personality for both of them.

I'm for Rudd and Gillard, and the sooner the better.

Rudd-Gillard and Gillard-Rudd both work.

If Rudd becomes leader, I even have no objection to Beazley picking up the Foreign Affairs portfolio, to tell the truth (that seems to be where political parties dump the dud leaders eg. Downer, Hayden etc.) providing he steps down graciously...

He's had his chances and blown it every time. If anything, he'd prefer
to take Defence, which is the portfolio that most interests him, but I
think he's become too much of a liability wherever they put him.

I'd like to see him bow out gracefully.

Edit to add this: A push for leadership change before Christmas.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rebel-mps-push-for-rudd-to-lead-before-christmas/2006/11/18/1163266825913.html


And a denial from Wayne Swan that there's any plan to dump Beazley:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/swan-backs-beazley-for-election/2006/11/19/1163871253378.html


You know what they say - when politicians deny something, you know it's
true.

"He has my full support" means "he'll be out of here before the end
of the week."

Swan is one of Beazley's biggest supporters. He owes a lot to Beazley for getting the treasury portfolio. If a coup is around the corner, he would definitely not be in on it...

I don't think it's possible to keep these things secret. Of course
Beazley supporters would rally round, but as soon as the rumours about
leadership change start, you know that a challenge is definitely on the
way.

Rudd's been keeping his profile high lately, and I've no doubt he's
already making his bid. It's going to be an interesting couple of
months.

Labor politicians have been avoiding the press to avoid talking the issue (a sign that something is wrong - if they were confident that Beazley was secure, they would dismiss any allegations as 'baseless')

It appears a shadow cabinet reshuffle is on the cards - probably a last ditch effort for Beazley to save his butt...

I wouldn't be at all sure that Rudd could win the next election, but the big worry with Beazley
is that Labor wouldn't make significant gains, making it just as difficult to win in 2010.

As for Jenny Macklin - she just sits in Parliament day after day like a pudding, contributing
nothing. I can't imagine how she ever got the job of Deputy Leader. What little Beazley does, he
has to do by himself.

As for Jenny Macklin - she just sits in Parliament day after day like a pudding, contributing
nothing. I can't imagine how she ever got the job of Deputy Leader. What little Beazley does, he
has to do by himself.

She's in there for three reasons:

1) She's a woman

Can't let the party look like it's run by the good old boys.

2) she's from the left faction

so the party can look united, with both the left and right in charge.

However, most importantly:

3) She is no threat to his leadership

She'd be a disaster as leader and everybody knows that, so Beazley can be assured of her unquestioning loyalty if she wants any chance of being one heartbeat away from the Prime Minister's office (the closest she'll get to it)

and especially no. 3, let's hope Julia Gillard gets the job next time!