tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/alp-leadership-crisis-2395/articlesALP leadership crisis – The Conversation2013-06-29T02:17:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/155642013-06-29T02:17:51Z2013-06-29T02:17:51ZThe leadership war is over – where to from here for the ALP?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26264/original/jkxn54vf-1372291539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The problem for Gillard has always been the 'Rudd-factor', and arguably her prime ministership never got off the ground.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia’s 43rd federal parliament has proven that politics is anything but boring. </p>
<p>Capping off a day when the two independent kingmakers, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, <a href="https://theconversation.com/country-independents-bow-out-but-play-to-the-end-15542">announced</a> that they would not contest the upcoming election, Kevin Rudd <a href="https://theconversation.com/rudd-wins-the-game-of-thrones-15573">won a party room ballot</a> for the Labor leadership and has been sworn in again as prime minister. </p>
<p>The battle between Rudd and Julia Gillard has been raging ever since Gillard toppled Rudd in 2010. Following his removal from the prime minister’s office, Rudd became foreign minister but <a href="https://theconversation.com/ambitions-to-lead-labor-as-kevin-rudd-quits-as-foreign-minister-5517">challenged Gillard</a> in early 2012. </p>
<p>Although he lost that contest, in March 2013 his supporters <a href="https://theconversation.com/julia-gillard-may-have-won-the-vote-but-the-alp-remains-desperately-dysfunctional-12981">again pushed</a> for him to have yet another go at toppling Gillard. In one of the more bizarre episodes in Australian politics, Rudd refused to run.</p>
<p>But now that Rudd has returned, what now for the ALP? Can Rudd, the “comeback kid”, defy the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-24/labors-primary-vote-drops-below-30-per-cent-in-latest-newspoll/4774760">previously poor opinion polls</a> and pull off a stunning election victory later this year?</p>
<h2>The Rudd factor</h2>
<p>The big problem for Gillard and the Australian Labor Party has always been the Rudd factor. Rudd’s regular media appearances, coupled with images of him being swarmed by voters while travelling around the country, served to remind people of his charms and built a perception that he was still a popular figure.</p>
<p>As though to fuel flames of division within Labor, opinion polls consistently also showed Rudd to be a more popular leader than Gillard.</p>
<h2>The role of opinion polls</h2>
<p>Opinion polls played a central role throughout Julia Gillard’s prime ministership. Since 2011, they have shown that it would be almost impossible for Labor to win the next election. </p>
<p>While it is common for governments to face poor opinion poll results, Gillard never had clear air to try and articulate her government’s policies. Everything the prime minister did was overshadowed by Rudd’s presence.</p>
<p>This always made Gillard’s position very difficult. It is often the case that any leader needs to keep an eye on potential challengers from within their party, but Gillard’s troubles were compounded by the fact that she also had to work to maintain the support of the cross-benchers to retain government.</p>
<p>Like any leader, Gillard also made a number of tactical choices that could have worked in her favour but didn’t. The decision to present herself as “the real Julia” raised questions about her authenticity early in her term in office.</p>
<p>The decision to introduce carbon pricing at the start of her prime ministership arguably made her an easy target for the opposition who worked hard to brand her as an untrustworthy leader. The decision to recruit Peter Slipper caused more problems that it was worth.</p>
<h2>Gillard’s legacy</h2>
<p>Despite her turbulent prime ministership, Gillard’s legacy is safe. As Australia’s first female prime minister, she was able to implement big picture policies like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, pricing carbon and introducing reforms to health and education. These were precisely the issues Rudd struggled to resolve while he was prime minister from 2007 to 2010.</p>
<p>Gillard also appeared to have re-introduced notions of cabinet government. Unlike Rudd, who was roundly criticised by his colleagues for not listening to them and making snap decisions on his own, Gillard sought to work with her ministers to avoid her predecessor’s errors.</p>
<h2>Personality not policy?</h2>
<p>An interesting feature of the Rudd-Gillard battle has been the focus on the personalities rather than policies of the two figures. There are, however, some important policy differences that Rudd may try to act on during his second prime ministership.</p>
<p>Rudd’s commitment to the emissions trading scheme was part of his undoing in 2010. It remains to be seen whether he will alter the government’s carbon pricing scheme.</p>
<p>Rudd has also altered his position on same-sex marriage. Stating that he had changed his view on the issue following a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gay-marriage-change-a-personal-journey-rudd-20130520-2jx65.html">“personal journey”</a>, Rudd, unlike Gillard, believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed as long as religious institutions did not have to marry them. The question is now whether he will pursue this policy change in parliament.</p>
<p>As prime minister in 2008, Rudd ended the Howard government’s so called Pacific Solution asylum seeker policy which made Labor appear <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/national/rudd-govt-softens-asylum-seeker-laws-20080729-3mgo.html">“soft” on the issue</a>. </p>
<p>Labor’s asylum seeker policy has also been <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-04/western-sydney-labor-mp-breaks-silence-on-asylum/4733128">blamed</a> by some Labor MPs for contributing to poor opinion polls. This very complicated area of policy will once again prove to be a challenge for Rudd. How he approaches this may be the key in turning the party’s electoral fortunes in some seats.</p>
<h2>A different leadership style?</h2>
<p>Rudd will also try to position himself as a very different leader to Gillard. He can differentiate himself by forging a more combative relationship between Labor and the Greens. This would weaken claims that the government was unduly influenced by the minor party. Similarly, Rudd could also seek to distance himself from the independents.</p>
<p>In announcing his intention to stand in the leadership ballot, Rudd positioned himself as a safe pair of hands by arguing that a “strong, proven, national leader” was needed to combat Tony Abbott. He also claimed that it was the pleas of people that motivated his run for the top job again.</p>
<h2>The problems for Labor</h2>
<p>Labor now finds itself in a very difficult position. After having so openly criticised Rudd’s leadership qualities, the Labor caucus now finds itself hoping the man they threw out three years ago still has the popularity and ability to galvanise support within the electorate and save their jobs.</p>
<p>This may be a masterstroke by Labor. After all, Bob Hawke replaced Bill Hayden on the day the election was called in 1983 and served as prime minister until 1991. On the other hand, this may yet signal to voters that Labor is disorganised and divided. Similar tactics of changing the leader was used by Labor in state elections in NSW and Queensland which led to very poor results.</p>
<p>In any case, Rudd and Labor have only a limited amount of time to try to gain the support and confidence of voters. The next short period in Australian politics will give an indication of whether this commotion was worthwhile.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15564/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s 43rd federal parliament has proven that politics is anything but boring. Capping off a day when the two independent kingmakers, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, announced that they would not…Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/155982013-06-27T20:31:32Z2013-06-27T20:31:32ZOnce bitten, twice shy: Labor again betrays the Australian people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26322/original/6fqgfwkw-1372313341.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is the decision to re-install Kevin Rudd as leader of the ALP and of the country an affront to Australian democracy?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The decision by the Labor caucus to minimise the electoral damage in September and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-26/rudd-prevails-over-gillard-in-leadership-ballot/4783422">return Kevin Rudd</a> to the party leadership was short-sighted and ultimately self-destructive. </p>
<p>More importantly, it operated to confirm the damaging sense, growing over recent decades among the Australian public, that politicians act cynically in their own interests. And with his decision to not move a motion of no confidence in the new administration, opposition leader Tony Abbott made his own contribution to the growing problem of voter alienation.</p>
<p>“They’re just in it for themselves” is the sentiment which best captures how the average voter currently thinks about their democratically-elected political representatives. Why did 57 caucus members vote to reinstate Rudd as prime minister on Wednesday? Because they were worried about their own seats – and therefore their jobs – come the election.</p>
<p>Labor powerbroker Bill Shorten <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/shorten-forced-to-swing-the-axe-20130626-2oxln.html">provided the public rationale</a> for the caucus decision half an hour before the vote. He reminded Labor parliamentarians that the main game was the September election, and the primary objective was keeping Abbott out of Kirribilli House. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/men-flay-gillard-in-poll-15228">polls</a> had long said that Labor would not achieve that primary objective while led by Julia Gillard. The only alternative was Rudd. It was a no-brainer.</p>
<p>There is no evidence that Shorten was not being genuine in that speech. His passionate defence of his party’s policies against those of the opposition may even be admirable. But in equating the interests of his party with the interests of the nation, he – and the Labor caucus – made the gravest of political mistakes for the second time.</p>
<p>The mistake was to ignore the question which for decades now has been nibbling at the integrity of Western parliamentary democracies. How can the relationship between state and citizen be repaired?</p>
<p>For the past 30 years, the relationship between state and citizen has been in what seems a permanent decline. Governments, with the assistance of journalists in the mass media and increasingly meek and ineffectual parliaments, have imposed wave after wave of significant, way-of-life-changing reform on voters, who rarely get a say on its implementation. </p>
<p>Sometimes that reform is genuinely in the public interest, though the public may not know it yet. A more expansive immigration program and a scheme to reduce carbon dioxide pollution are instances in Australia. </p>
<p>However, there are some occasions that reform is demonstrably not in the public interest, including the removal of workers’ protections, the replacement of income and profit-based taxes by consumption taxes, and the pursuit of budget surpluses over public infrastructure. </p>
<p>But only rarely are voters offered a genuine choice between alternatives. More often than not, the major parties agree at the level of fundamental philosophy, so that the choice available to voters is akin to a customer who prefers yellow paint being confronted by a shelf displaying different shades of brown.</p>
<p>The result is an increasingly cynical electorate which becomes ever more despondent about the prospect of turning up to the local primary school every three years to vote. Last year <a href="http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/lowy-institute-poll-2012-public-opinion-and-foreign-policy">the Lowy Institute found</a> that only 39 per cent of young Australians were prepared to say they backed democracy unequivocally. What to do about this cynicism is the key question at the heart of democratic governance in Australia today.</p>
<p>This is not an argument for base populism: not for running opinion poll-driven administrations which pander as much to majority prejudice as they do to genuine public interest needs. Rather, it is an argument for governments - and those politicians who inhabit them - to take much more seriously their responsibilities as democratic representatives of the people. </p>
<p>That is why the panicked decision of the Labor caucus must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Yes, Westminster conventions allow it. Yes, Labor was facing a probable annihilation under Gillard. But no, political parties should not be allowed to put their own private interests before the broader public good in a way that further encourages dangerous voter cynicism.</p>
<p>One does not need to be a supporter of Abbott or the Coalition to support a no confidence motion. It is enough to be a supporter of democratic renewal. The voting public were entitled to have the new administration tested by the cross-benchers in their representative institution. </p>
<p>However, despite three years of running perhaps the most negative and cynical opposition in modern Australian political history, Abbott baulked at the final chance to move a motion of no confidence in the new Rudd administration. In this way, he merely participated in what increasingly appears to be, to borrow <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3149592.htm">his own phrase</a>, a “conspiracy of the parliament against the people”.</p>
<p>In any case, this latest switch will not help Labor. One of the expressions of contemporary voter cynicism is that we prefer the idea of the leader who isn’t: when Rudd was prime minister, Gillard was preferred; when Malcolm Turnbull was opposition leader, Joe Hockey was popular. </p>
<p>Now we prefer Rudd and Abbott to Gillard, and Turnbull to Abbott. Anger at the self-serving nature of Wednesday’s decision will soon overwhelm any honeymoon popularity Rudd attracts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15598/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Russell Marks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The decision by the Labor caucus to minimise the electoral damage in September and return Kevin Rudd to the party leadership was short-sighted and ultimately self-destructive. More importantly, it operated…Russell Marks, Honorary Research Associate, School of Social Sciences, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/156002013-06-27T20:30:24Z2013-06-27T20:30:24ZGrattan on Friday: Kevin Rudd and the narrative of the house<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26331/original/xmz6nnb9-1372319536.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kevin Rudd wants to mess with Tony Abbott's head.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In March 2010 PM Kevin Rudd faced off against opposition leader Tony Abbott at the National Press Club in a debate about health policy.</p>
<p>Three months later Rudd would be deposed by his own party. One criticism by colleagues was that he’d become obsessed with health, tramping around the nation’s hospitals with his eye off other areas.</p>
<p>But on that March day he trounced Abbott who, as a former health minister, should have been competitive. The incident underscores the strength of Rudd as campaigner.</p>
<p>Rudd yesterday was challenging Abbott to debate him on all sorts of issues. “We are going to be debating debt and deficit at the National Press Club”, he said.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_tMtsTKsOvE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>We’re back to the future in more than just the fact of Rudd’s resurrection.</p>
<p>You can feel the busyness in the air, as he’s being briefed to the eyeballs.</p>
<p>Politically, he’s messing with his opponent’s mind, as well as directing the voters’ gaze away from the government’s problems to the sunny uplands of vision and optimism.</p>
<p>Never mind that half a dozen ministers jumped off the frontbench (without even having to be pushed) when he defeated Julia Gillard, or that Craig Emerson, Peter Garrett and Stephen Smith - who remains Defence Minister - have announced this week they will quit parliament.</p>
<p>Such departures are hardly votes of confidence in his powers as electoral saviour. Smith, who holds a marginal seat in West Australia, said he could not take another three years after serving two decades. But earlier this term, when Gillard’s leadership was in trouble and Rudd was considered unacceptable, Smith’s name was canvassed as a possible compromise candidate. Presumably at that stage he intended to stay on.</p>
<p>Any other leader would be discombobulated by the shambles. But not Rudd. He is being very consultative because he is aware of all that old criticism of his style, but at heart he’s a one-man band.</p>
<p>He can also live in a parallel universe. Who else would have exhorted MPs, in his first remarks in the House as restored PM, to “let us try, just try, to be a little kinder and gentler with each other in the further deliberations of this parliament”?</p>
<p>Nevertheless, he sailed through yesterday’s question time – the last of the hung parliament – with little trouble.</p>
<p>No, he wouldn’t provide an election date but strongly indicated he’d vary Gillard’s September 14. He said had to talk with colleagues, and consider the local government referendum (which has its own timetable requirements), the early-September G20 meeting in St Petersburg, and the clash with Yom Kippur.</p>
<p>Whatever the considerations, he probably wants a date chosen by him not her. Anyway, why wouldn’t he give the Liberals, who’ve been making their arrangements around the date Gillard so conveniently announced, a more uncertain environment? The speculation is that an August date is possible - but that would mean ditching the referendum.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26335/original/wjmv5j29-1372320075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26335/original/wjmv5j29-1372320075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1108&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26335/original/wjmv5j29-1372320075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1108&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26335/original/wjmv5j29-1372320075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1108&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26335/original/wjmv5j29-1372320075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1392&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26335/original/wjmv5j29-1372320075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26335/original/wjmv5j29-1372320075.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1392&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He brushed off attacks on his integrity, over breaking his pledge not to challenge Gillard, by simply turning the tables, pointing to Abbott’s statements about Malcolm Turnbull when the latter was opposition leader. “I think it’s not a time for pots calling kettles black”.</p>
<p>The Liberals have a mountain of negative character references about Rudd from Labor colleagues who have previously unloaded on him. The grabs are devastating.</p>
<p>But the question is: has the public factored that in? After all, Rudd has been sky high in the opinion polls well after many of these things were said.</p>
<p>If those lines have lost their bite, the opposition will have to be careful about dwelling on them excessively.</p>
<p>Rudd yesterday declared there has been too much negativity – that Australians are looking for “a positive vision”. Gillard was always painting Abbott as Mr Negativity; the pitch had some success but she was a poor messenger. Rudd should be able to drive the point home more forcefully (with the qualification that Abbott knows he has a problem and has been working on the positives).</p>
<p>Mark Latham as Labor leader used to trot out the “ladder of opportunity” as his storyline. Rudd’s narrative, which got a major workout yesterday, is that of the house.</p>
<p>The Labor party, he said, wants to build the house up. “It takes time, brick by brick, laying the foundations, setting the walls, installing the roof. This is how we see the task of nation building.”</p>
<p>Even defence and emergency management are part of the house story. “These are all about how we maintain the securty of the house. We are building the walls to make sure they are robust against those threats which may come against us”.</p>
<p>The roof is for the protection of all – including the disabled, the sick, the pensioners.</p>
<p>But Abbott’s politics “is about not building the house up. His comfort zone is tearing the house down”.</p>
<p>Get used to the house, a simple political metaphor in a country big on home ownership.</p>
<p>Rudd’s strategy is about making people feel good about themselves and their nation, having them think on what is going well, even while some things need improving, and seeking to neutralise Abbott’s exploitation of their discontents.</p>
<p>He’ll also promote the idea of “new” more constructive politics, which elevates the discourse into something more civil and constructive, seeking to cast Abbott as practicing aggressive “old” politics. This picks up on community disillusionment with the way politics has been operating especially in the period of the hung parliament.</p>
<p>The public opinion polls and the parties’ own tracking will be important for both sides in formulating their tactics as the election nears. This week’s huge change in Labor has opened something of a vacuum. We don’t know whether people will be cynical about Rudd’s duplicity and less enamoured when they see him day to day, or whether they will be (and stay) as enthusiastic as ever about the man they didn’t want thrown out.</p>
<p>In other words, has Rudd Mark 2 returned to power coated with teflon? If he has, the Coalition will have to adapt its tactics quickly.</p>
<p>Rudd is talking buzz words and ideas – energy, engaging with young people and “cooking with gas”, politicians working together rather than shouting at each other all the time.</p>
<p>He’s creating a sense of momentum. The new ministry is expected today; the swearing in will be Monday. He’ll talk to Victorian premier Denis Napthine about the Gonski funding ASAP. Can he clinch a deal where Gillard failed? Apparently Rudd is now quite keen on Gonski despite some earlier speculation that he wasn’t.</p>
<p>He plans to fulfil Gillard’s commitment to visit Indonesia for leadership talks next week. She was accused of making the trip a political exercise, even though it is part of a regular dialogue. If he goes Rudd will be able to put a more “statesman” frame around it; he may also emerge appearing to have “done something” on boats (whether or not it amounts to anything substantial).</p>
<p>The boats issue is one of the most difficult policy challenges he has. In search of a solution, he meanwhile lectures Abbott about the need for the opposition leader to get briefed.</p>
<p>Another challenge is dealing with the business community. He has sent the signal that he wants to improve what has become a very bad relationship. Even if there were a superficial improvement, however, it is hard to see big or small business doing anything but being polite, while waiting in the expectation of a change of government.</p>
<p>What success the Rudd government has in selling its economic credentials to the wider community will partly depend on how well new Treasurer Chris Bowen performs. Wayne Swan has been widely seen as an ineffective salesman of Australia’s economic successes. Bowen versus Joe Hockey, who has been presenting more sharply in recent months, will be an interesting match up.</p>
<p>Around Labor, one of the big questions is whether Rudd will be be different second time round. A little, no doubt – anyone who’s been to political hell and back will have learned a bit.</p>
<p>Has he changed fundamentally? Probably not. But then, for Labor’s purposes just now, he probably does not need to have remade himself. If, between now and the election, Labor had a reprise of Kevin 07 that would suit it just fine.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26332/original/3p3gjbr8-1372319560.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26332/original/3p3gjbr8-1372319560.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26332/original/3p3gjbr8-1372319560.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26332/original/3p3gjbr8-1372319560.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26332/original/3p3gjbr8-1372319560.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26332/original/3p3gjbr8-1372319560.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/26332/original/3p3gjbr8-1372319560.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15600/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In March 2010 PM Kevin Rudd faced off against opposition leader Tony Abbott at the National Press Club in a debate about health policy. Three months later Rudd would be deposed by his own party. One criticism…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/155612013-06-27T02:02:16Z2013-06-27T02:02:16ZBack to the opposition: bring on the policies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26263/original/4n63vs7g-1372290522.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Now that the Labor leadership issue has been resolved once and for all, the attention will soon turn to the opposition's attempts to win government at the election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With such unprecedented turmoil inside the Labor Party over leadership it is not surprising that we have all forgotten about the opposition. You know, the government-in-waiting, the other mob, the Coalition made up of the Liberal, National, Liberal National Party (Queensland) and Country Liberal Party (NT). The one led by Tony Abbott.</p>
<p>The need for the opposition to be more than a critic of the government and to articulate its policies <a href="https://theconversation.com/never-mind-the-leadership-what-about-the-opposition-12991">was considered</a> last March, when a push by the ALP to install Kevin Rudd failed.</p>
<p>However, conditions have now changed. With the September 14 election less than 80 days away - and now it might be earlier - the opposition cannot continue to rely on broad generalisations, or to be concerned that their policies might be “stolen” by the government.</p>
<p>The revival of the Rudd prime ministership also means that the focus on the internal leadership woes of the government which distracted media and government attention from the opposition’s policies - or in some cases like with education and health, the lack thereof - has ended.</p>
<p>The Gillard government failed to flush out any of the controversial aspects of the opposition’s policies or would-be polices. Attempts to portray the incoming Abbott government as a cost-cutting, public service slashing government have not worked. After all, Abbott <a href="http://www.news.com.au/money/federal-budget/no-escape-from-cuts-as-opposition-leader-tony-abbott-set-to-back-wayne-swan-and-labors-budget-2013-spending-cuts/story-fn84fgcm-1226643424209">endorsed the cuts</a> that former treasurer Wayne Swan announced in the May budget.</p>
<p>Trying to nail down the opposition’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-says-no-need-for-gonski-funding-reforms-20130421-2i7wy.html">stance on education</a> has also failed.</p>
<p>Seeking to differentiate the Gillard government’s initiatives on disabilities from the opposition’s supposed more stringent views of public spending failed, with Abbott <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3750494.htm">endorsing the proposed new levy</a> arrangements for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.</p>
<p>The flaws in the opposition’s climate change policies – the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/liberal-party-discontent-grows-20130509-2jau3.html">Direct Action plan</a> - were never exposed. Given <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/25/barack-obama-climate-change-strategy">recent developments in the United States</a> on this matter we can expect the Rudd government to be giving this policy area considerable attention. However, the <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/combet-resigns-as-minister-20130626-2oxp6.html">resignation</a> of climate change minister Greg Combet in the wake of the Rudd revival poses its own problems for the government.</p>
<p>Now, with a united Labor Party (relatively) and with the leadership issue off the boil, there will be more scrutiny from a focused government and commentators sceptical about an Abbott opposition. The opposition’s previous unimpeded march to office, though still highly probable, is now going to be more difficult.</p>
<p>The initial challenge for the opposition is whether to focus on all the disaffected comments about Rudd made previously by senior Labor figures or to go for the policy issues.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ4oUYW2xZo">Recycling all the bile about Rudd</a> by his colleagues should be used by the opposition with extreme caution. It is tempting, but voters expect attacks on personalities by political opponents and usually do not like it.</p>
<p>It is clear that the Rudd line - which we have heard previously from Gillard minsters, but will get amplified by the new prime minister - is that Abbott will be a risk to Australia. He will initiate spending cuts, and the spectre of the Newman LNP Government public service cuts will be repeatedly invoked.</p>
<p>Abbott’s supposed reactionary politics and conservatism (read: Abbott’s Catholicism) will be run through issues not only about women, abortion but also in relation to the same-sex marriage issue. It is not accidental that Rudd some weeks ago <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gay-marriage-change-a-personal-journey-rudd-20130520-2jx65.html">shifted his own stance on this</a>, and his explanations for this make for <a href="http://www.kevinruddmp.com/2013/05/church-and-state-are-able-to-have.html">interesting reading</a>. </p>
<p>That some of Abbott’s own frontbench and potential leader (Turnbull) have <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/turnbull-under-fire-for-gay-marriage-stance-20120707-21ngx.html">different views</a> on this issue make this a potentially difficult issue for Abbott and the opposition.</p>
<p>What Australian voters want is to be told the nature of the issues the nation faces and and the policies needed to address these issues. The time for the opposition fudging policies, for camouflaging difficult options in the government’s own leadership tussles are over. </p>
<p>The phony war is over. The politics of personal attacks, of a government imploding and allowing the opposition an unimpeded march to office is also over. The opposition now has to work to get into office as they should. Bring on the policies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15561/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Prasser does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With such unprecedented turmoil inside the Labor Party over leadership it is not surprising that we have all forgotten about the opposition. You know, the government-in-waiting, the other mob, the Coalition…Scott Prasser, Executive Director, Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/155702013-06-26T21:05:12Z2013-06-26T21:05:12ZTwice bitten, business is likely to approach Rudd with caution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26245/original/hhp72rsv-1372246873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labor's economic record has had hits, but also misses.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You have to wonder how many times the Labor party will make the same mistake. Immediately prior to the 2010 election the party dumped Kevin Rudd and replaced him with Julia Gillard. The net effect of this was to ensure that the government could not run for re-election on its record. Now immediately before the 2013 election the party dumped Julia Gillard and replaced her with Kevin Rudd. The net effect of this will be to ensure the government will not be able to run on its record.</p>
<p>Now this observation is true, irrespective of what you think of either record.</p>
<p>To be blunt, the record isn’t good. The Rudd government was marred by excessive spending on the stimulus packages of 2008 and 2009. The bungled implementation of the stimulus spending that led to house fires and deaths and knocking down perfectly good school halls only rebuild them was not a record anyone would want to run on. Then there was the mining tax. </p>
<p>The Gillard government has similar problems – the broken promise of “no carbon tax under a government I lead” has been fatal to her re-election prospects and the continual promises to re-balance the budget has seen her economic credentials shredded. The revised mining tax raised very little revenue.</p>
<p>To be generous – bad luck and poor circumstance have contributed to the problems the government faces. But there has been a fundamental problem of competence. Rather incompetence. Former finance minister Lindsay Tanner famously remarked that the Rudd government didn’t dot the i’s or cross the t’s. The Gillard government was no improvement.</p>
<p>So here is the rub: what difference will a change in prime minister have on business confidence at this stage of the electoral cycle? In my view, none.</p>
<p>Kevin Rudd has been able to convince his colleagues that he is a reformed man. He has learned from his mistakes. This must be a good thing – yet, the challenge for any prime minister isn’t that they learn from their mistakes but that they have a vision for the nation and policy ideas to implement that vision.</p>
<p>Yet we know that Rudd had no policy ideas in 2008. After ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, apologising to the Stolen Generation, and dismantling the Howard government’s border protection regime, Rudd had no ideas. He summoned 1000 of the best and brightest of Canberra for a summit to brainstorm ideas. The only idea to come out of that was the mining tax – we all know how that turned out.</p>
<p>Rudd now has to articulate what ideas he has. Bear in mind that the parliament rises this week and won’t sit again before the election. So there is little opportunity to implement any new ideas. At the same time several ministers have resigned their positions, so who will do the work? He must take any new ideas to an election. Also he must win that election.</p>
<p>This is what business will be considering – can Rudd win an election? The answer must be “no”. In video games you can always hit the re-set button. In real life – that option is simply not available. To win an election Rudd must invite the electorate to imagine the last five years hasn’t happened. That next time will be different. I doubt he will succeed.</p>
<p>Rudd will be a lame duck, caretaker prime minister. His job will be to save as many Labor seats as he can. In the meantime consumers will continue to be cautious, business will continue to be cautious, and voters will get to clean up the mess.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15570/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sinclair Davidson is an Senior Fellow with the IPA.</span></em></p>You have to wonder how many times the Labor party will make the same mistake. Immediately prior to the 2010 election the party dumped Kevin Rudd and replaced him with Julia Gillard. The net effect of this…Sinclair Davidson, Professor of Institutional Economics, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/129942013-03-22T03:12:50Z2013-03-22T03:12:50ZLabor could look to business to regain the lost art of leadership<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21603/original/ygctbhbc-1363920367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could a corporation get away with running itself the way the ALP has handled its leadership woes?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday’s events around Labor’s leadership were stunning. </p>
<p>Julia Gillard emerged victorious but polls will no doubt continue to predict a huge loss for this Government on election day and MPs in marginal seats are understandably nervous.</p>
<p>But would a new leader really make a difference to their chances?</p>
<p>Research into the impact of leadership on performance in a corporate setting suggests that the answer to this question is both yes and no. </p>
<p>The environment in which the organisation is operating and the characteristics of an organisation can have a much bigger impact than who is the leader. So for instance, a new CEO taking over a well-run organisation in a booming market with no real competitive threat is likely to look good irrespective of what she or he does. For a while.</p>
<p>This scenario translates easily to politics. After stepping aside for Bob Hawke in 1983, Bill Hayden famously said that a drover’s dog could lead the Labor party to victory. But the opposite is true as well. A dysfunctional organisation in an environment that doesn’t value what it offers is going to struggle in the short term no matter who the leader is.</p>
<p>Most CEOs and their spin doctors are well aware of this. At annual meetings when the numbers look good, success is often attributed to a great leadership team that made sound business decisions. When the numbers aren’t so attractive, market downturns, exchange rates and other aspects of the environment are usually a big part of the explanation. Of course, the truth can be found somewhere in between.</p>
<p>Perhaps the real question that should be asked by the Labor caucus and the Labor party itself, is what the conditions need to be for any leader to succeed.</p>
<p>If the Government was a company it might ask itself if it had a well understood set of values, a clear mission and strategy, as well as the systems, processes and people that enable it to execute effectively. Simon Crean’s comments yesterday suggested this wasn’t the case. When he said, “What we have to stop doing is revolving the door and start churning out good policy that we persuade the community about”, doesn’t suggest they have a clear strategy. </p>
<p>Ensuring everyone in the organisation understands what it stands for is also crucial. While maximising value for shareholders should be a shared goal across a corporation, it is the means by which that is done that requires real commitment across the organisation. The recent narrative from the Labor party has all been about division rather then a cohesive vision for the nation. </p>
<p>In the same way firms that focus on their mission and customers are more likely to be rewarded with positive financial performance, governments that have a strong, unified focus on what they are trying to deliver to their constituents are more likely to be rewarded with votes and office.</p>
<p>Another issue is the timeframe for making real change. In the short term, an organisation and the environment in which it operates is fixed. But to achieve a lift in performance the organisation will have to change and re-shape itself to better fit the needs of its stakeholders. This means understanding those needs, prioritising and then operating in a way that delivers.</p>
<p>When markets sense a new CEO is making real change and a pathway to improved performance is clear, a gradually improving share price follows as promises are delivered. The performance of Telstra over the last few years is a good example. Sol Trujillo’s troubled regime was replaced by the well respected David Thodey who has gradually gained the confidence of investors as reflected in the share price. </p>
<p>Changing leadership is not a quick fix. If the polls are anything to go by, it might take Gillard some time to fix whatever has gone wrong - if she can achieve that at all. However whether Gillard had been replaced by Kevin Rudd or a drover’s dog, six months may not be enough.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12994/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Styles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Yesterday’s events around Labor’s leadership were stunning. Julia Gillard emerged victorious but polls will no doubt continue to predict a huge loss for this Government on election day and MPs in marginal…Chris Styles, Professor and Deputy Dean, Director Australian Graduate School of Management, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/129822013-03-21T07:53:59Z2013-03-21T07:53:59ZExplainer: how does a leadership spill work?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21559/original/nqdh37mz-1363845226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C2%2C997%2C664&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No blood was spilt today in parliament, but we still had a leadership spill.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Spill image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After a <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-blog-michelle-grattan-12976">harrowing day in parliament</a>, the Labor party saw a leadership spill and Prime Minister Gillard was returned as leader.</p>
<p>The only thing was… no one contested the top spot and Julia Gillard’s name the only one on the ballot. Kevin Rudd declared at the 11th hour that <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/i-wont-challenge-for-pm-rudd/story-fnhqeu0x-1226602686327">he would not stand as a candidate</a>.</p>
<p>A “spill” for most people would be something to clear up, but what was happening this afternoon behind closed doors was something quite different. </p>
<p>So how does the process of a leadership challenge work? Monash’s Zareh Ghazarian takes a look at the process behind the leadership crisis. </p>
<p><strong>What is a leadership spill and how does it work?</strong></p>
<p>A leadership spill is brought about in cases where there is disquiet and discontent about current leadership. This is something that prime minister Gillard has been dealing with for quite some time. </p>
<p>There’s been constant speculation about her leadership and of course, there’s been Rudd in the background reminding voters that he was Prime Minister, before Gillard rolled him last time. </p>
<p>So that’s what brought it on today. </p>
<p>But as for the technicalities of the spill, the prime minister convenes a meeting. The meeting is attended by all Labor members of parliament, that includes senators. All positions are then declared vacant and then they will call for nominations for leader and deputy leader of the party. </p>
<p>If they were in opposition, it would just be the opposition leader. But of course, the extra significance here is the person that becomes the leader of the governing party becomes Prime Minister.</p>
<p><strong>So how do they cast their vote? Is it a secret ballot?</strong></p>
<p>If there is more than one candidate, it is a secret ballot. There will be people appointed to be tellers, they will count the votes, it will all be done in secret and no one will know who they voted for. </p>
<p>In some famous cases of past spills, some people have said that they will vote for one person and have written that name on the ballot paper. But as they are about the throw their ballot paper in the ballot box, they cross it out and put someone else’s name on it.</p>
<p>So it’s done by secret ballot and then it’s counted, and who ever has the 50% plus one majority becomes the leader. In the 102 member Labor caucus that means at least 52 votes .</p>
<p><strong>When the vote is cast, is the leader bound to stick the result?</strong></p>
<p>If a candidate doesn’t win the majority, they will no longer be the leader and no longer prime minister. The person who does win a majority will be and they would need to be sworn in by the governor general.</p>
<p>But it’s an easy thing for parties to get around, it’s not a change in terms of numbers in the parliament, it’s just a change of personnel. So it’s not such a major problem for them.</p>
<p><strong>Does a hung parliament affect a spill?</strong></p>
<p>Well, the parliament tests that support and this will mean the incoming prime minister will need to get the assurance of all the crossbenchers that they will continue to support the party in forming government.</p>
<p>And they only have to promise the incoming leader and their party two things. First that they will vote with them on the budget and they will vote with them on motions of no confidence.</p>
<p>So as long as the incoming prime minister can guarantee their budgets will pass and they can survive no confidence motions, they can govern. And technically they don’t even have to pass any other pieces of legislation ever as long as they can get those two things done.</p>
<p><strong>So what would you see if you were a fly on the wall in caucus today?</strong></p>
<p>Well, it’s fairly unceremonious. As observers, we think there’s some great magic going on but there really isn’t.</p>
<p>Generally it’s just a very prosaic paper ballot. Each candidate is asked to make a short speech about why they should be elected. </p>
<p>And then MPs are asked to write down the name of the candidate that they want to win and put it in a box. </p>
<p>It’s very, very back to basic democracy and it certainly doesn’t have the pomp and ceremony of other sorts of electoral contests. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12982/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After a harrowing day in parliament, the Labor party saw a leadership spill and Prime Minister Gillard was returned as leader. The only thing was… no one contested the top spot and Julia Gillard’s name…Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55972012-02-27T19:37:24Z2012-02-27T19:37:24ZCautious optimism for Gillard on one of Canberra’s strangest days<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8125/original/5s8hywnf-1330324066.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=291%2C55%2C3720%2C2695&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gillard had a strong performance after yesterday's leadership ballot, but there's still a long way to go.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of Julia Gillard’s better days in Australian politics was nonetheless brought to an unusual end yesterday with the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/arbib-resigns-as-minister-and-senator-20120227-1tyar.html">resignation</a> of Mark Arbib.</p>
<p>The former right faction leader, who most recently served as Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Sport, stood down from both his ministery and his senate position, citing family reasons. He also said the party needed to “heal” following the ballot.</p>
<p>That development aside, with a <a href="http://resources.news.com.au/files/2012/02/27/1226282/654936-aus-pdf-newspoll-ii.pdf">Newspoll</a> surprising commentators in the morning by finding of a swing back to the government, the prime minister saw off a challenge to her leadership of the Labor party by her former foreign minister, Kevin Rudd. </p>
<p>With Rudd indicating his willingness to go to the backbench with magnanimity (at least for now) and the Opposition floundering in yesterday afternoon’s parliamentary question time, Gillard may well feel satisfied with the day’s outcome.</p>
<h2>Resolving the Rudd question</h2>
<p>The Labor spill resolves the Rudd-versus-Gillard leadership dynamic for now, but the fundamental problems for the government have not really gone away. Without a lower house majority, Labor cannot afford to lose a single seat next election. Rather, it must <em>find</em> seats to win from the Liberal-National coalition in order to regain control of the House of Representatives. </p>
<p>The polls may be improving for the government, but the fact is that it is still languishing behind the opposition as the voters’ preferred choice. With the carbon tax due for implementation on 1 July, there is a real prospect of a fall in voter support occurring and Gillard’s leadership may be under pressure yet again. </p>
<p>Rudd now goes to the backbench where he can work on addressing his core problem – specifically, his lack of support in the caucus. Conditions for a leadership change may not be opportune at the moment, but that could change in the future. </p>
<h2>No walk in the park </h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8124/original/hccwb52h-1330323818.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8124/original/hccwb52h-1330323818.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8124/original/hccwb52h-1330323818.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8124/original/hccwb52h-1330323818.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8124/original/hccwb52h-1330323818.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8124/original/hccwb52h-1330323818.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8124/original/hccwb52h-1330323818.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Labor’s chief returning officer Chris Hayes announcing the result of the leadership ballot in a frenzied media pack yesterday.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/ Samuel Cardwell</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And it’s not all good news for the Coalition. In the House of Representatives sessions after the caucus meeting, the Liberal-National opposition floundered badly in its first opportunity to attack the government and its leader. There is a sense that, in the immediate aftermath of the Gillard-Rudd battle, it is opposition leader Tony Abbott who is under pressure. </p>
<p>Tony Abbott has also struggled to win over the support of the Australian voters as measured by the polls. His problem now is that the Labor party’s recent behaviour ought to set his side of politics up for a very easy victory at the next election. </p>
<p>Any sense that this might not transpire could be dangerous for Abbott’s leadership of the Liberal party. The failure of his team to exploit Labor’s problems in question time hints at a possibility that Abbott might struggle to fully exploit the opportunities being presented to him. </p>
<h2>The long road to the polls</h2>
<p>Although it’s not clear whether this is a problem for Abbott or not, the fact is that the next election isn’t due – and probably won’t be called – until the latter half of 2013. </p>
<p>Gillard has time to try to reverse polling trends (yesterday’s Newspoll notwithstanding), but it also means Abbott still has time to mount an effective campaign against her. </p>
<p>What’s also not clear is whether Gillard or Abbott will be at the helm of their respective parties when that election is held. </p>
<p>The first round of the leadership battle may be over, but there may be more to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5597/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of Julia Gillard’s better days in Australian politics was nonetheless brought to an unusual end yesterday with the resignation of Mark Arbib. The former right faction leader, who most recently served…Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55902012-02-27T03:34:46Z2012-02-27T03:34:46ZWinners and losers: the ALP leadership spill and the triumph of the insiders<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8100/original/xrjxdd7c-1330311804.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gillard leaves the ballot with allies Wayne Swan and Craig Emerson.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Julia Gillard won an impressive victory today, one that Kevin Rudd will find it very difficult to come back from. The scale of her victory contrasted with support for Rudd among the broader public or even among Labor voters. </p>
<p>Opposition to Rudd among Labor MPs was reflected in the broader milieu of Labor-friendly academics and journalists. The closer a Labor sympathiser was to the centres of power, the more likely they were to support Gillard. Her appeal is to those comfortable with the idea of exercising power and secure in their knowledge of how it works. </p>
<p>Gillard supporters on social media, for example, constantly explained, with a tone of exasperation, that voters do not elect the Prime Minister. In this they are technically correct, but for decades parties have told voters that elections are about choosing a prime minister. </p>
<h2>Who supports Gillard?</h2>
<p>For many of Gillard’s supporters there is little consideration of why an incumbent Labor PM might leave Labor voters so unenthused. The major excuse that her supporters propose is misogyny. The populist right provides much evidence of this, but educated professional women have been a key component of Labor’s support base since the 1980s. Gillard’s poor appeal to Labor voters is evidence that many of these voters have been alienated from her as individual, not as a woman. </p>
<p>Rudd’s public campaign for the leadership centered on his electoral appeal but there is little evidence that Labor MPs from more marginal electorates were more willing to support him. One significant factor was that MPs from the left were notably more likely to vote for Rudd. </p>
<p>But senior left figures such as Kim Carr and Anthony Albanese were unable even to rally all of their faction to support Rudd. Lindsay Tanner noted years ago that factional allegiance in the ALP is often based on what or whom someone <em>opposes</em> rather than what they stand for. </p>
<p>Rudd presented himself as the victim of the ascendant Right (wing) within the party, in particular MPs such as Bill Shorten, Mark Arbib, David Feeney and Don Farrell. These men may be a political liability to Gillard, but she easily won the ballot despite them. </p>
<p>Statements by Left MPs supporting Rudd were almost devoid of any reference to policy and instead cited Rudd’s electoral popularity. Rudd’s own appeal to caucus members was almost empty of policy content: vague references to the importance of manufacturing and a gimmicky scheme of HECS remission were all that he offered. Marriage equality, an issue on which there are costless votes to be won from the Greens, rated not a mention. </p>
<h2>Who has she left behind?</h2>
<p>In part at least, Gillard disappoints many Labor voters for her ostentatious social conservatism. Rather like Bob Carr or Tony Blair, she comes across as someone to whom appeasing popular conservatism is not a necessity but a joyous task.</p>
<p>For political insiders this demonstrates her acuity but it alienates a broad group of voters. We could characterise this group as disproportionately female, not particularly interested in politics, but generally Labor-voting. They would have voted for Keating in 1996 and for the republic (if they could), but they are not rusted-on members of the left milieu that agonises between Labor and the Greens. </p>
<p>Their vision of what they like about Labor is an image, sometimes vague, of a progressive nation, the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhqAFLud228">Redfern Park speech</a> jumbled with the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3TZOGpG6cM">Apology</a> with Kevin Rudd triumphing over the Global Financial Crisis. </p>
<p>They are the sort of voters who might, if enthusiastic, argue the case for Labor in workforce chat or on social media. The mood of these voters influences more Labor MPs from the left than the right, hence the relatively greater disaffection with Gillard among the left. </p>
<h2>The ALP is not dead yet</h2>
<p>Is Labor finished? It’s hard to tell. Voters have a low opinion of politicians. They expect them to fight among themselves and as long as their lives are unaffected by government they are surprisingly forgiving of party disunity. </p>
<p>Paul Keating triumphed after a bruising and desperate battle. John Curtin came to power after the 1940 election due to Labor’s strong performance in NSW despite there being three three competing parties in that state. </p>
<p>Tony Abbott does not excite voters. The economic fundamentals favour Labor as they did Howard before his victories in 2001 and 2004. Labor has proven itself skilled in the state level at grinding out victories against the odds. </p>
<p>Whether Labor wins or loses the political dynamic on the left on the left will continue to be set by the Greens. It is not surprising that Green voters and MPs were supportive of Gillard. This means a left that cedes economic policy, protectionist noises notwithstanding, to the technocratic centre. </p>
<p>With that said, this leadership tussle was not largely based on policy. The battle between Rudd and Gillard could have been more than froth and bubble, but sadly it was not. Whether Gillard can rise above it will reamin to be seen. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoffrey Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Julia Gillard won an impressive victory today, one that Kevin Rudd will find it very difficult to come back from. The scale of her victory contrasted with support for Rudd among the broader public or even…Geoffrey Robinson, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55812012-02-27T01:19:32Z2012-02-27T01:19:32ZJulia Gillard wins ALP leadership spill: expert reaction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8092/original/mbqtpmrb-1330302383.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gillard had strong support from caucus this morning.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime minister Julia Gillard has defeated Kevin Rudd in this morning’s leadership ballot by 71 votes to 31. </p>
<p>Rudd has said he will <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-27/gillard-wins-leadership-spill-hold/3854204">not initiate a further challenge</a> to the prime minister’s leadership, but has not ruled out being drafted by his parliamentary colleagues in future.</p>
<p>The Conversation’s team of political experts responds to the outcome of the spill. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Professor David Lowe, Director of the Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University</strong></p>
<p>This is the kind of victory the Gillard camp had to have. The numbers suggest they’d be reasonably encouraged [by the result]. If it had been a slimmer margin, even slightly slimmer, you’d find a lot of people in the media talking about Rudd’s chances of challenging again. It’s a convincing victory – but only just.</p>
<p>Gillard has a chance to really relaunch herself because she and her supporters have managed a very strong narrative publicly that they’ve been hamstrung by Rudd’s undermining. Now she’s got this sense that provided Rudd will behave himself, and let’s assume that he’ll keep his word on that, she now has a chance to relaunch to the public in ways that show the “real Julia”. </p>
<p>In that sense, the relaunch provides her an opportunity. Given we’re so far out from an election, I think there’s still some grounds for optimism [for the ALP]. I don’t think [the ALP is] heading to oblivion. She can take heart from a small movement upwards in the opinion polls. </p>
<p>If you combine that with what is still a pretty good story about how Australia is faring economically in a time of global crisis, and all those other stories of good policy reform that they haven’t been able to sell well enough, and you can build that narrative into the relaunch, and if the “real Julia” can emerge a bit more unhindered by Kevin, then there is still a chance. </p>
<p>The other side of the coin is that those watching from the stakes will be watching very keenly, and the “Rudd excuse” may no longer be there. </p>
<p>The opposition will be carefully building well-designed hand grenades as we speak so they can try to make the government stumble. [Gillard’s] stumbles will be watched all the more closely from now on. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8095/original/z483p6m4-1330307196.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8095/original/z483p6m4-1330307196.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8095/original/z483p6m4-1330307196.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8095/original/z483p6m4-1330307196.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8095/original/z483p6m4-1330307196.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8095/original/z483p6m4-1330307196.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8095/original/z483p6m4-1330307196.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dick Adams carries the ballot box this morning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Dr Mark Rolfe, Lecturer, UNSW</strong></p>
<p>Everyone expected these sorts of numbers, but if we all predicted it why was everybody so nervous? And why were several ministers so vitriolic in their attacks on Rudd last week? We know there was something wrong with Rudd’s prime ministership but it seems like Gillard’s supporters were running so scared of him getting too many numbers, that they had to come out on the attack.</p>
<p>In that respect, the reaction now after the vote seems a bit too hopeful, a bit too much like trying to put the whole incident behind. But Rudd is not going to stop. We all know he’s a sort of determined, semi-psychopath so to speak.</p>
<p>Why would he suddenly give up? He certainly is going to give up on undermining Gillard publicly but it doesn’t mean he’s going to give up on putting himself out there. He can now write and broadcast in the media, he can tour seats of his supporters, generally putting his face out there.</p>
<p>In fact, it wasn’t in Rudd’s interest to win today. He doesn’t want to take over now, when it means of months and months of running government, which is after all, his weakest point and his popularity may tank again. So he only needs a short time to come back, show he’s popular, build Labor’s numbers up a bit after the carbon tax has been bedded down from 1 July.</p>
<p>This has always been his strategy.</p>
<p>Labor now may get some bump in the polls because Julia now seems to be more of her straight talking self. But it’s not going to radically restore the trust and credibility issue. Once a leader loses trust it’s very hard to restore.</p>
<p>But after all that’s happened the results of the polls on the weekend show the two party-preferred is still only 53 to 47 for the Coalition. Despite all that’s happened, there’s a softness in the coalition vote. The Liberal party should be in a great position like the Coalition up in Queensland where the two party preferred vote is 60 to 40. This softness is due to Abbott, as much as he has been this fierce campaigner, he’s really not much more popular than Gillard. Labor could use this if it got its act together.</p>
<p><strong>Professor Carol Johnson, Professor of Politics, University of Adelaide</strong></p>
<p>It is a very convincing win at 71 to 31, and it would have been 72 to 31 if a member hadn’t been off on maternity leave. But whether it will finally put [the leadership] to rest is another question. </p>
<p>I think one of the important issues to watch very carefully is what Kevin Rudd and his supporters say about the legitimacy of this vote. Bruce Hawker was suggesting beforehand that some MPs had been under pressure to vote for Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd has suggested that at times too.</p>
<p>There has still been a suggestion that the faceless men are pulling the strings and this may not be a full reflection of Labor politicians’ true views. Why that is important is it feeds into the suggestion that Kevin Rudd is being illegitimately kept away from the prime ministership.</p>
<p>One of the key issues is whether he will acknowledge now that the problem has not just been the so-called “faceless men”, most of whom have not been faceless in this current round, but that the problem has always been that he also lacks the support of his parliamentary colleagues.</p>
<p>He had amazing popularity in the electorate, he could give quite brilliant speeches and at his best be inspiring and come across as a person who empathised with ordinary Australians but his fatal flaw was that his colleagues, the people he actually worked with, didn’t want to keep working with him and didn’t think he could manage the business of government.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8093/original/hhjb4qf6-1330307182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8093/original/hhjb4qf6-1330307182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8093/original/hhjb4qf6-1330307182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8093/original/hhjb4qf6-1330307182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8093/original/hhjb4qf6-1330307182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1046&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8093/original/hhjb4qf6-1330307182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1046&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8093/original/hhjb4qf6-1330307182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1046&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The media throng following the ballot.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Penny Bradfield</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Julia Gillard and her supporters will now hope that her legitimacy as leader is well established where it hadn’t been after 2010.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’ll be a major relaunch of policy; the extraordinary situation this Labor government finds itself in is that their policies have actually been going very well. The economy has been going gangbusters. The Australian Labor government has one of the lowest proportions of government debt to GDP in the Western world.</p>
<p>What they need to do and what Gillard and Wayne Swan have been failing to do – that must be remembered, the weakness of this government isn’t just Julia Gillard – is that they’ve been failing to sell the success.</p>
<p>You have this disconnect. Many people in the Western world would love to be in a situation as healthy as Australia’s society and economy at present, but the government hasn’t been able to sell that to the public.</p>
<p><strong>Dr Michael McKinley, Senior Lecturer, International Relations and Strategy, ANU</strong></p>
<p>This is still not a good result for Gillard, around 30% of her caucus don’t want her and 55% of the population don’t think she’s up to it. You’d always take a greater than two thirds majority in any vote as a solid victory but the problem is we’re dealing with politics. And when you have around 30% of your caucus who think you’re on the nose you don’t have a recipe for healing. </p>
<p>When they talk about healing in politics, it’s bullshit. People in politics don’t heal, not in the short-term. They might in 20 or 30 or a couple of hundred years, but they don’t do it over a year.</p>
<p>For the rest of the week, we’ll have a lot of nonsense from both sides. Gillard will now say, “everyone is moving on to unity”, and you can believe that if you want to. The opposition will have an almost infinite supply of cheap shots which suggest the Labor party is unfit to govern. And the Labor party itself will be a party ravaged by fear of losing the next election, by a sense of impending doom. </p>
<p>[The leadership ballot] has done nothing to give them confidence and that means Labor will be trying to pretend that it can win the next election. Short of Tony Abbott being found in bed with a live man or a dead woman, they’re not going to make it.</p>
<p>[Labor] might get certain lifts in the polls and they may go up in the public estimation but they’ve basically got a very serious wound and it’s like having lost a limb. No matter what the party does, it’s going to have that whisper of defeat in its ear for the next 15 months.</p>
<p><strong>Paul Strangio, senior lecturer in politics, Monash university</strong></p>
<p>The numbers certainly suggest that this was a decisive victory. What it further indicates is that some of the claims from the Rudd camp about the numbers that he had behind him were significantly inflated and it also suggests that Rudd was unable to claim any momentum from the “people power” campaign that he ran last week.</p>
<p>I have always thought that a Rudd comeback was highly unlikely. All the indications are that he doesn’t have the base of support in caucus and the resentments towards are powerful.</p>
<p>In terms of where we go from here, this has obviously been a damaging time for the government. However, if there is a silver lining it is that the strong expression of party room support for Gillard might enhance her authority in the public’s mind and perhaps even been psychologically empowering for Gillard herself.</p>
<p>The caucus also showed it wasn’t going to be spooked by the opinion polls or swayed by the Rudd family’s “people power” campaign. My view is that there’s something encouraging about that and perhaps the Labor Party has learned some hard lessons from the whole Rudd phenomenon.</p>
<p>In facing down Rudd, Gillard also started to build a narrative of what the government has achieved under her leadership and it might in itself provide a turning point. Having said that, I think we have to be circumspect in our predictions about what lies ahead - and that also goes for the forecasts of certain doom for the government. This has been and is likely continue to be a volatile and unpredictable period. </p>
<p><strong>Professor Brian Galligan, Professor of Political Science, University of Melbourne</strong></p>
<p>It’s significant in that the vote has finally come about, and as was pretty universally predicted, Julia Gillard has won. But Kevin Rudd has got credible support. His main pitch all along was to reach beyond caucus – where he I presume knew he didn’t have numbers – to try to get some leverage because he’s way ahead of Gillard in public opinion polls.</p>
<p>The outcome is that the Labor caucus and the bulk of the ministers have remained behind the prime minister despite the public opinion polls showing they’re in a losing position. </p>
<p>It’s clearly settled for the time being but none of these things is settled permanently. Politics is volatile. Gillard and the Labor government can move on now and show that they’re genuinely focused on policy and bedding down some of the significant things they’ve been doing and, importantly, working out how they sell those to the Australian public.</p>
<p>But that’s the problem. It’s anomalous. If you go overseas people are surprised that Australian politics seems to be at such a low ebb when comparatively the economy is so strong and everything seems to be working well here. It’s a clumsy government that really can’t stay on top of that and turn it to its advantage.</p>
<p>I think Gillard really has to reunite the party and settle down these deep divisions now. She was one of those with Wayne Swan leading the field in the bitterly acrimonious, negative things said about Rudd, when she and the treasurer were right in there with Rudd [when he was prime minister]. Why didn’t they pull him into line then, why didn’t they counsel him to change?</p>
<p>Gillard has an ongoing basic trust issue with the Australian people. Why would you trust somebody like that? She really has to work at building that trust. The electorate is a bit turned off and part of that will be ensuring she has the support, at least overtly, of caucus.</p>
<p>But who knows? Kevin Rudd seems to have a popular spark. Despite all the negative things said about him by his colleagues about what a dysfunctional prime minister he was, he can go out there and get an enthusiastic popular response in a way that Gillard seems to struggle with. But she’s now in a strengthened position. She’s shown she’s got the solid support of the Labor party, they’re locked in behind her. Some might think they’re lemmings who are going to follow her over the cliff at the next election.</p>
<p>As the election comes close, then I think if her popularity [falls] and the government is not in a winning position there could be another attempt to change leaders. </p>
<p><em>More to come.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5581/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Prime minister Julia Gillard has defeated Kevin Rudd in this morning’s leadership ballot by 71 votes to 31. Rudd has said he will not initiate a further challenge to the prime minister’s leadership, but…Brian Galligan, Professor of Political Science, The University of MelbourneCarol Johnson, Professor of Politics, University of AdelaideDavid Lowe, Director of the Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin UniversityMark Rolfe, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, UNSW SydneyMichael McKinley, Senior Lecturer, International Relations and Strategy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55792012-02-26T19:35:55Z2012-02-26T19:35:55ZForget Kevin 07 – Rudd won’t close Labor’s enthusiasm gap in 12 or 13<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8082/original/zrmfnqff-1330250663.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Reading from the 07 handbook won't help Rudd this time around.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Paul Miller</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Arriving back in Australia on Friday, <a href="http://www.kevinruddmp.com/2012/02/transcript-of-press-conference-brisbane.html">Kevin Rudd said</a>, “If you have a strong view on the future prime ministership of the country, your power as the people is what will count.” </p>
<p>In response to Rudd’s call for “people power”, ALP backbencher <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/live-kevin-rudd-returns-amid-labor-leadership-turmoil-20120224-1tre6.html">Michael Danby said</a>, “He is a mortal political like the rest of us and I hope the Australian people, when they’re ringing offices and using these Tea Party tactics to … win office, have a more realistic view.”</p>
<p>Danby’s observation regarding “Tea Party politics” is an interesting one, because it points to a key problem that plagues both Gillard and Rudd – what US psephologists (election experts) call the “enthusiasm gap”.</p>
<p>Gillard is suffering from an enthusiasm gap in the electorate and Rudd is suffering from an enthusiasm gap among his parliamentary colleagues. </p>
<p>It came as no surprise that Gillard got the nod this morning, but she still struggles with her popularity among the Australian public. Rudd has the public vote, but clearly not that of the Labor caucus.</p>
<h2>Lessons from the US</h2>
<p>The concept of an enthusiasm gap is used primarily to refer to differing levels of predicted and actual turnout of voters on election days. </p>
<p>Voting is compulsory in Australia, so we do not have the same problem of “voter mobilisation” as in the US where voting is not compulsory, but it does manifest in other ways.</p>
<p>A preliminary analysis of the concept of an enthusiasm gap in print-based US political journalism has indicated a number of different uses. These include:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Differences in levels of voter support across demographic segments. An early use of the phrase in 1996 indicated there had been a shift amongst conservative voters relative to progressives from a “gender gap” to an enthusiasm gap in presidential election voter turnout rates. </p></li>
<li><p>Differences in the composition of campaign funding. Observers pointed out that even though Hillary Clinton and Obama had roughly similar levels of campaign funds during the 2007 Democratic presidential nomination race ($25m vs $32m respectively), they had different compositions of numbers of donations and dollar amount of the donations. Obama had a large number of donations of a small dollar amount, while Clinton had fewer donations, but these were of larger dollar amounts. </p></li>
<li><p>Using the media to modulate voter enthusiasm. The addition of Sarah Palin to the 2008 presidential race and in particular her performance at the Republican National Convention was reported to have closed the enthusiasm gap Obama had over his Republican competition. Traditional strategic communication tools such as “narrative” are important here, with Obama’s “Hope” political narrative seen as far superior to John McCain’s anaemic Republican narratives of beaing the “maverick,” the “reformer,” the “war hero,” and the “bipartisan negotiator.” </p></li>
<li><p>The importance of direct action groups in activating and cultivating voter enthusiasm. The Tea Party was understood to fuel the Republican edge in mid-term election enthusiasm with 74% of Tea Party supporters enthusiastic about voting. This was compared to 43% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans. </p></li>
<li><p>The asymmetrical growth and decline of enthusiasm between parties and/or candidates. An “enthusiasm gap” can be produced by increasing enthusiasm in a candidate or the candidate’s opposition losing enthusiasm. Republicans are currently discussing how they believe Obama cannot replicate the “magic” of 2008 to ward off anxieties over voter turnout in the current Republican presidential nomination race.</p></li>
</ol>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8083/original/5cbn8qb6-1330251539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8083/original/5cbn8qb6-1330251539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8083/original/5cbn8qb6-1330251539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8083/original/5cbn8qb6-1330251539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8083/original/5cbn8qb6-1330251539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8083/original/5cbn8qb6-1330251539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8083/original/5cbn8qb6-1330251539.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rudd’s Tea Party tactics won’t work.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Kevin 07 is dead</h2>
<p>In Australia, the last three points are relevant for understanding support for parties, politicians and policies in the electorate. Funding is certainly important, but in Australia this is more of a diagnostic point than a causal one and therefore less important when assessing the political enthusiasm in the electorate. Arguably, Rudd’s comments regarding “people power” invoked the enthusiasm gap that worked in his favour during his 2007 election. </p>
<p>But the enthusiasm gap of “Kevin 07” over Howard’s Coalition was not made only by Kevin Rudd. The gap in the 2007 election was a product of not just the “Kevin 07” narrative, but also the catalysing effect of direct action groups (Getup, unions, and so on), and electorate dissatisfaction with Howard’s Coalition government. </p>
<p>However important Kevin Rudd was to the 2007 election result, these conditions will not be repeated in any future election. Dissatisfaction is currently with the ALP government and direct action groups have mobilised against, not for, ALP policy in the form of opposition to the mining tax, pokie reform and the price on carbon. </p>
<h2>No going back for Labor</h2>
<p>Labor will have a serious problem regardless of the result of this morning’s leadership spill. </p>
<p>This much is obvious to most political commentators. Indeed, the Labor leadership stoush was a classic example of a political party acting in such a way as to lose enthusiasm, rather than the opposition political party working to produce it. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5579/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Glen Fuller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Arriving back in Australia on Friday, Kevin Rudd said, “If you have a strong view on the future prime ministership of the country, your power as the people is what will count.” In response to Rudd’s call…Glen Fuller, Assistant Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55752012-02-26T19:35:47Z2012-02-26T19:35:47ZLabor leadership spill: the rules of the game<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8085/original/w3szgnry-1330256421.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The process Labor uses to remove and replace parliamentary leaders contains some surprises.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/John Pryke</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At 10am today, the Labor caucus will meet to settle the leadership battle between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. But how does the leadership selection process actually work?</p>
<p>While the contest between Gillard and Rudd has been played out over the last few days in an overwhelmingly public fashion, the actual mechanics of the leadership selection are by contrast, very private. </p>
<p>The procedures for the election of the party leader are contained in the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party Rules – a document that is not publicly available. </p>
<p>However, from the information that has made it to the public arena we are able to piece together an accurate picture of how the process works. </p>
<h2>The numbers</h2>
<p>Leadership elections take place in a special meeting of the parliamentary caucus. Following a motion to declare the leadership of the party vacant, candidates put themselves forward to the party room. </p>
<p>Although they do not require a mover or a seconder, it is common for potential candidates to “do the numbers” and campaign amongst their parliamentary colleagues before the vote to ensure that they have the requisite level of support before formally placing their hat in the ring. </p>
<p>Once the nominations have been received, voting takes place in a secret ballot in which all federal MPs (both the House of Representatives and Senate) are entitled to vote. The electoral system used is preferential and parliamentarians must be present to vote. In the event of a tie between two candidates, the name of the winner is pulled from a hat.</p>
<h2>A system of our own</h2>
<p>Australian political parties are actually quite unusual in that it is the parliamentary party that exclusively selects the party leader. Political parties in the UK, Ireland and Canada have moved away from this model and now incorporate different groups in the selection process, such as party members, unions, affiliated groups, and the party conference. </p>
<p>For example, the UK Labour Party’s leader is elected in a ballot with the votes split in thirds between MPs, rank-and-file party members and affiliated unions. At the party’s September 2011 conference it was even suggested the model be changed to incorporate a percentage of votes from registered Labour supporters in the broader electorate.</p>
<p>The leadership selection system that we currently have in Australia is justified as being both flexible and efficient, which is important given the relatively short time-frame of our electoral cycle (at most three years). </p>
<h2>A mandate from the party or the people?</h2>
<p>In governing parties, the leader also must serve as the prime minister and is therefore constitutionally responsible to the lower house of the Parliament. For that reason, and because it is in large part also a managerial role, the parliamentary party is deemed the most suitable group to the select the leader. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8084/original/xyjv8xj3-1330256391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8084/original/xyjv8xj3-1330256391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8084/original/xyjv8xj3-1330256391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8084/original/xyjv8xj3-1330256391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8084/original/xyjv8xj3-1330256391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8084/original/xyjv8xj3-1330256391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8084/original/xyjv8xj3-1330256391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard at a press conference in 2009.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of the current debate, we’ve seen this play out in the characterisation of Kevin Rudd’s previous leadership style as chaotic, difficult and poll-driven and in the point repeatedly raised that MPs must be able to work with their party leader.</p>
<p>The other side of this argument, made by Rudd and his supporters, is that while the current selection process might produce a party leader and a PM who has the support of the parliamentary party, he or she may not share that same level of support either within the wider party or with the Australian public. </p>
<h2>Change in the air?</h2>
<p>While the ALP can’t know this for certain without actually going to an election, the situation is more problematic in Gillard’s case with continued public resentment over the manner in which she was installed as party leader in the “coup” of 2010. </p>
<p>Given that Rudd does not appear to have the numbers within the caucus to win the current leadership contest, a selection process that incorporates the broader party would definitely benefit the Rudd campaign. Interestingly, just before the ALP National Conference in December last year, Rudd actually called for reform of the Labor leadership selection process so that rank-and-file members would have a greater say in choosing the parliamentary leader. </p>
<p>Regardless of who emerges as the victor in the Gillard-Rudd leadership stoush, the broader debate on reforming the leadership selection process in the ALP is just about to begin. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5575/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anika Gauja does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At 10am today, the Labor caucus will meet to settle the leadership battle between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. But how does the leadership selection process actually work? While the contest between Gillard…Anika Gauja, Lecturer, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55782012-02-26T04:39:46Z2012-02-26T04:39:46ZEasy like a Sunday morning political TV show: how Kevin and Julia fared<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8080/original/ysyknwdw-1330229763.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kevin Rudd and Therese Rein spend their Sunday morning at church rather than in front of a TV.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dave Hunt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sunday mornings are special. </p>
<p>Sure, 99% of the non-political world is sound asleep (or still attempting to make their way home after a night on the town), but for many political enthusiasts Sunday mornings are when long breakfasts are accompanied by a cavalcade of politics oriented shows. </p>
<p>This week, the major Sunday programs were even more eagerly anticipated as Labor prepared for its leadership ballot.</p>
<h2>Early start</h2>
<p>Sunday morning news really begins at 7AM. Weekend versions of Sunrise and Today gave a concise overview of the major issues. Channel Seven’s Sunrise had an interview with former ALP powerbroker Graham Richardson and their political correspondent in Canberra. </p>
<p>The time constraints of commercial television ensured the discussion on the question of Labor’s leadership was short and sharp. The show kept on returning to the leadership battle throughout the morning in various and “entertaining” guises. Apparently, some people find politics a bit dull and they would like to know about other things going on in the world as well. Strange.</p>
<h2>Laurie Oakes</h2>
<p>Channel Nine’s Today has a consistent weapon that keeps on firing – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Oakes">Laurie Oakes</a>. Not only is he a decorated political journalist, Oakes is also able to get interviews with key players. </p>
<p>This Sunday he interviewed Kevin Rudd, arguably the biggest player in the current debate. Watching the interview was like watching two well-crafted Swiss watches tick. Oakes’ questions were pointed and probing while Rudd maintained his calm, cool and collected persona. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8081/original/g3mrqg9v-1330230541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8081/original/g3mrqg9v-1330230541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8081/original/g3mrqg9v-1330230541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8081/original/g3mrqg9v-1330230541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8081/original/g3mrqg9v-1330230541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=987&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8081/original/g3mrqg9v-1330230541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=987&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8081/original/g3mrqg9v-1330230541.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=987&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Award winning journalist Laurie Oakes interviewed Kevin Rudd on the Today program.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joe Castro</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In an interesting exchange, Rudd recounted a conversation he had with Nicola Roxon at Canberra airport after being deposed as PM in 2010. According to Rudd, Roxon had told him that she was able to work with him as PM which contrasted with comments she had made earlier this week. </p>
<p>Other than that, Rudd revealed no surprises but no one would have expected anything other than a safe, rational performance just before the leadership ballot.</p>
<h2>Insiders</h2>
<p>Arguably the current flagship of the political shows starts at 9am on the ABC. Hosted by Barrie Cassidy, the Insiders program draws on senior journalists and interviews with senior political actors to drive its hour on air. </p>
<p>This week’s show gave some excellent insight into the Gillard and Rudd feud. The show’s format of not having to go to commercial breaks or provide coverage of other topics ensures that it is a political junkie’s most potent fix. </p>
<p>A problem for all shows this week was the fact that the leadership battle had enormous coverage in previous days. The challenge for these shows was to find unique or original angles of analysis. On the whole, they did this, especially in presenting the latest estimates of the final result of the leadership ballot. </p>
<p>Moreover, the analysis of these shows, especially on Insiders, wrapped up all the main points that had been raised throughout the week. They successfully set the stage for tomorrow’s vote.</p>
<h2>Important television - that struggles to attract viewers</h2>
<p>Clearly, the prime minister is favoured to win comfortably. While Rudd has vowed to not challenge Gillard a second time, his presence in parliament will ensure that he continues to attract interest from the media. Indeed, it’s expected that he’ll try to become leader again in the not too distant future.</p>
<p>And with that realisation, Sunday breakfast has ended along with the political shows for another week. For many, Sunday morning politics programs provide compelling viewing. However, it seems that they don’t attract a great deal of viewers. Rather, one of their important roles is to provide material that will feature in the nightly news bulletins and drive the political debate for the coming days. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5578/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sunday mornings are special. Sure, 99% of the non-political world is sound asleep (or still attempting to make their way home after a night on the town), but for many political enthusiasts Sunday mornings…Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55452012-02-25T05:09:36Z2012-02-25T05:09:36ZKevin Rudd’s leadership tilt won’t make a difference in the Queensland election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8071/original/7c2dhk47-1330131464.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kevin Rudd may not have the power to swing his home state.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Kym Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>During his campaign to wrest the Labor leadership from prime minister Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd has repeatedly made reference to his home state of Queensland.</p>
<p>With the Sunshine State set to go to the polls next month, and Labor premier Anna Bligh facing spirited opposition from a Campbell Newman-led LNP, it’s been suggested the tussle for the federal leadership could affect the outcome of the Queensland election.</p>
<p>But will Queenslanders change their minds and votes to support a local boy? As QUT’s political expert Clive Bean told The Conversation, it may not be that simple.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have invoked the Queensland election in their press conferences about the leadership crisis. Will the current leadership crisis have any bearing on the result in Queensland next month?</strong></p>
<p>It will have a bearing in the sense that it is providing a drag on the ability of Queensland Labor to campaign effectively. That albatross around the ALP’s neck in Queensland needs to be removed in order for them to move on with their campaign and have it focus on state issues.</p>
<p>What we need to consider, though, is the extent to which it would make a difference to the possible outcome of the Queensland election if the matter were resolved, particularly if it were resolved in favour of Kevin Rudd. </p>
<p>There has been some speculation that it would lead to a significant boost for Labor in Queensland, to the extent that it might help them win the election. But all the indications are that Labor is so far behind the LNP in the Queensland election that the effect of resolving the federal leadership, even if it were in Kevin Rudd’s favour, would be simply to remove the drag effect. It’s only one factor that’s causing a drag to the Queensland Labor campaign. It wouldn’t provide a significant boost to their standing, it would just help remove one factor that is helping to drag them down.</p>
<p><strong>Kevin Rudd makes a lot of his status as a Queenslander, but is he as loved in his home state as he implies?</strong></p>
<p>I think that’s an important question. To some extent he’s achieved a sympathy vote stemming from the manner of his dismissal as prime minister in 2010, so I think he garners sympathy for that. But whether that sympathy woud translate into support for him if he became prime minister again is an open question. I suspect it would be reduced because once he had that job again there would be no need for the sympathy support, it would really be a matter of whether people wanted him as prime minister or Labor leader or saw him as a good politician in his own right.</p>
<p>The other factor we need to consider is the extent to which some of the support that appears to be coming to him is from people who are cynical about the Labor Party and not necessarily supporters of the Labor Party.</p>
<p>By that I mean Queensland voters who actually might support the LNP. Sometimes a political leader gets more sympathy from those who don’t have a strong interest in supporting them one way or the other. They’re really for the other side of politics, but one way of showing their disapproval of the party they don’t admire is to support members of it who are down, rather than those who are up.</p>
<p><strong>How important a part will Queensland play in 2013 federal election, and will the leader of the Labor Party be a factor in how the state swings?</strong></p>
<p>Queensland will play an important role, as it has over a number of elections recently. When Labor did well in 2007 it was helped along considerably by winning quite a few seats in Queensland. It lost many of them in 2010 and if we go back before that to elections earlier this century, lack of support in Queensland has been a drag on Labor. If Kevin Rudd were to win the leadership, that would help Labor in Queensland at the federal level, but it would probably only help in terms of stemming the tide rather than providing a major boost that would see them win a lot of seats. </p>
<p><em>Why has Rudd been playing the Queensland card? Read <a href="https://theconversation.com/kevin-rudds-queensland-pitch-could-sway-the-sunshine-state-but-leave-the-rest-of-australia-cold-5577">Robin Tennant-Wood’s take</a> on his tactics.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5545/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Bean does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>During his campaign to wrest the Labor leadership from prime minister Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd has repeatedly made reference to his home state of Queensland. With the Sunshine State set to go to the polls…Clive Bean, Professor, Political Science, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55772012-02-25T02:59:06Z2012-02-25T02:59:06ZKevin Rudd’s Queensland pitch could sway the Sunshine State, but leave the rest of Australia cold<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8073/original/dzyp6g2d-1330139083.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rudd has been appealing to his Queensland constituents, but will it work?</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Kevin Rudd’s announcement of resignation as Foreign Affairs Minister and subsequent leadership challenge has been a carefully constructed exercise in the sort of politics on which Queensland thrives. He has praised the Queensland premier, Anna Bligh, referring to her as his “good friend” and not for the first time, wore his Queensland heart on his sleeve. Just today, the former prime minister was mobbed on Queen St Mall in Brisbane by a throng of vocal supporters. </p>
<p>Why talk up one state at the risk of irritating or worse, alienating, the 80% of the Australian population that don’t live in Queensland?</p>
<p>To understand the significance of Rudd’s tactics, we need to look at Queensland politics generally. More than any other state, Queensland produces and celebrates populist politicians: tub-thumping Queenslanders who decry the treachery of the southern states and appeal directly to a long-held parochialism. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Wayne Goss, Pauline Hanson, Peter Beattie, Bob Katter, Barnaby Joyce, and, yes, Anna Bligh and Kevin Rudd – the list goes on. </p>
<p>The reasons for this are complex and go back as far as the separation of the colony of Queensland from New South Wales in 1859. You just don’t mess with that kind of history. </p>
<p>Queensland has produced only four of the country’s 27 Prime Ministers. Two of them – Arthur Fadden and Francis Forde, only lasted in the job a matter of weeks between them. Fadden assumed the leadership of a deeply divided government after the resignation of Menzies in 1941 and for six weeks presided over the only government in Australian history to be forced to an election due to loss of supply. Forde was Curtin’s Deputy Prime Minister and was sworn in as Prime Minister after Curtin’s death in 1945. Precisely one week later he lost the leadership ballot to Ben Chifley. It would be another six decades before another Queenslander took the keys to The Lodge and Rudd’s popularity in his home state, and by extension, approval of his party, soared.</p>
<p>Rudd, along with his federal parliamentary colleagues, is well aware that in order to win the next federal election the ALP needs to win Queensland. In 2007 they won 15 of the state’s 29 seats. In the 2010 election, after Rudd was deposed, Labor lost 11 seats across the country – seven of those in Queensland. The message from north of the Tweed was clear and Rudd has spent much of his time since August 2010 capitalising on it.</p>
<p>Does the message, however, hold any validity? Radio National’s Breakfast on Thursday morning ran a brief segment on the relevance of the federal leadership to the coming Queensland state election. The segment included a vox pop recorded in a shopping centre in the electorate of Ashgrove which is being contested by LNP leader, former Brisbane Lord Mayor and son of former Liberal Senator Jocelyn Newman, Campbell Newman, against popular Labor incumbent, Kate Jones. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8069/original/ycm49q6c-1330126594.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8069/original/ycm49q6c-1330126594.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8069/original/ycm49q6c-1330126594.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8069/original/ycm49q6c-1330126594.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8069/original/ycm49q6c-1330126594.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8069/original/ycm49q6c-1330126594.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8069/original/ycm49q6c-1330126594.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gillard does not have Rudd’s popularity in Queensland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Gary Ramage</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The interviewer asked shoppers who they would be supporting in the state election and whether the federal leadership might be a factor in their decision. The answers confirmed what the polls have been indicating: a majority of voters nominated Newman as their preferred candidate and while the federal leadership was not an issue in every case, almost every person interviewed expressed anger or disappointment over Rudd’s ousting in 2010. Queenslanders can hold a grudge and Rudd knows it.</p>
<p>His direct appeal to voters to “pick up the phone and ring your MP” is an insult to Westminster style democracy, but in the context of the political cauldron from which Rudd emerged, having been Chief of Staff to former premier Goss, this is how politics is played. Rather than place his policy agenda and timetable for achieving it on the table in front of his caucus colleagues, he is attempting to highlight his personal support, appealing to voters to threaten their local members with electoral annihilation if they don’t support the boy from Queensland.</p>
<p>Will the tactic work? Unlikely. Blackmail is seldom a good way to manage government. It might sway a few backbenchers sitting in marginal seats or some of his seven fellow Queenslanders, but the majority of caucus members will be more inclined to look at the broader picture of a government with a reform agenda based on a full term.</p>
<p>The Gillard government may be a precarious one, dependent upon the support of three non-government members, but despite the current crisis, it has largely been a government of substance, if not good leadership. </p>
<p>Playing to the populist gallery north of the Tweed might work for football matches, but is more likely to annoy those representatives from the seven other states and territories who see themselves as part of an Australian government rather than a satellite of Queensland.</p>
<p><em>Related: Professor Clive Bean says the Queensland election is <a href="https://theconversation.com/kevin-rudds-leadership-tilt-wont-make-a-difference-in-the-queensland-election-5545">not in play</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5577/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Tennant-Wood does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Kevin Rudd’s announcement of resignation as Foreign Affairs Minister and subsequent leadership challenge has been a carefully constructed exercise in the sort of politics on which Queensland thrives. He…Robin Tennant-Wood, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Business and Government, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55692012-02-24T03:53:27Z2012-02-24T03:53:27ZKevin Rudd has the courage to lead that Julia Gillard lacks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8059/original/qg2w5x23-1330057583.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=35%2C0%2C413%2C285&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Julia Gillard never had the courage to confront Kevin Rudd.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC News 24</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Kevin Rudd has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/hold---rudd-confirms-ballot-nomination/3851086">formally announced</a> he will contest the Labor leadership in a ballot on Monday. This is just the latest act in the pantomime of Australian politics.</p>
<p>This drama production is an indulgence and in it we see how the ALP has rediscovered the traditional roots of all politics: dishonesty, deceit, fear, anger, lust and revenge. It is worth remembering the words of the American academic and historian, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Adams">Henry Brooks Adams</a> – “politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organisation of hatreds.” </p>
<p>In sum, there is nothing wrong or unnatural in the unfolding stage-managed squabble between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. But what is surprising is the almost total lack of wider reflection upon it. </p>
<p>The candidates’ contending histories of how it all came to pass are virtually irrelevant because of the public’s inability to independently verify the respective accounts (assuming they even want to). </p>
<p>Still, futile attempts will be made by Gillard and Rudd to promote their version of events, even though it will convince only those whose loyalties were pre-existing.</p>
<p>So beyond personal accounts, what might be observed that has a bearing on the outcomes, or at least should have?</p>
<p>The first, is that Prime Minister Julia Gillard presents herself as someone to whom things happen – she is never part of their provenance. Thus, she never conspired against Rudd, others came to her at the last minute.</p>
<p>We see this again and again. When the ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/02/10/3427070.htm">4 Corners program</a> provided accounts that an ascension speech had been written some time in advance of Prime Minister Rudd being deposed, this was an initiative undertaken by her office, without her knowledge. </p>
<p>In the same vein, her office was responsible for the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-outlines-adviser-tony-hodges-role-in-tent-embassy-riot/story-fn59niix-1226256122527">Australia Day fiasco</a>. And lastly depending on how you view the custody of media in Gillard’s immediate circle, her office, or someone close to it, might even have been responsible for the leaked <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/kevin-rudds-not-a-happy-little-vegemite/story-fn7x8me2-1226274678702">Rudd YouTube video</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8054/original/z6zm2rgg-1330054710.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8054/original/z6zm2rgg-1330054710.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8054/original/z6zm2rgg-1330054710.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8054/original/z6zm2rgg-1330054710.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8054/original/z6zm2rgg-1330054710.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8054/original/z6zm2rgg-1330054710.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8054/original/z6zm2rgg-1330054710.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jess O'Callaghan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In other words, even if the last-mentioned event is discounted, the inference is that the prime minister is frequently a lever jerked by those who control the machine.</p>
<p>Second, her leadership is meant to be strong – strong enough to provide the political leadership for the country, to lead the ALP, control caucus, and manage cabinet. This is her claim and the claim made on her behalf by her supporters, especially among the upper echelons of cabinet. </p>
<p>Yet as deputy prime minister, she and any aggregation of senior ALP cabinet members, were never strong enough, courageous enough, or imaginative enough to call a meeting with Rudd to tell him that his leadership style was unacceptable. </p>
<p>I would expect that, over time there could have been at least 2-3 such meetings which could have escalated to the point where he should have been given an ultimatum if that was their inclination. </p>
<p>Instead, they seemed to have had only the courage to moan and groan about him and then mount a gang attack on a person who was not only just being himself, but the party’s democratically elected prime minister in his first term. </p>
<p>Third, whatever Rudd’s failings as prime minister, they were surely known from as early as his time in the Queensland State government apparatus, and certainly no later than during his time in opposition in Canberra.</p>
<p>Finally, all this talk about teamwork and personal relationships strikes me as a little weak and thin-skinned. Cabinets are not sports teams and this misunderstanding has become far too popular on all sides of politics. Members of political parties do not have to like each other. They do have to find ways of developing and implementing sound policies. It is a fallacy that totally ignores the history of, for example, effective but divided wartime cabinets and general staffs. </p>
<p>Citizens should not give a damn whether the relationships are close or bitter, but they should care whether a shared vision, albeit moderated by diverse backgrounds, can be pursued. If the ALP cabinet is saying that Rudd is impossible, period, then they, collectively, are poor excuses for politicians.</p>
<p>Overall, there is a strange and curious implication to all of this: the treatment of Kevin Rudd – in particular what appears to be the collective failure to confront him – paradoxically makes him an ideal leader for the times. </p>
<p>To borrow from the late Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, the ALP is currently demonstrating little more than its indomitable “will to lose”, but Rudd probably could change that. It will be one hell of a ride and he won’t score as high on a “buddy rating” as many of the mediocrities national politics attracts, but he is, to borrow again from Hunter S., full of “dissatisfied voltage.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5569/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael McKinley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Kevin Rudd has formally announced he will contest the Labor leadership in a ballot on Monday. This is just the latest act in the pantomime of Australian politics. This drama production is an indulgence…Michael McKinley, Senior Lecturer, International Relations and Strategy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55542012-02-24T02:28:18Z2012-02-24T02:28:18ZSure we can change leaders, but can a leader change?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8037/original/fczh22n9-1330040368.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C12%2C955%2C668&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can Kevin Rudd in 2012 be a different kind of leader to the Kevin Rudd of 2010?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a Monday showdown looms, one of the big questions being asked by members of the Labor caucus is whether Kevin Rudd in 2012 can be a different kind of the leader to the Kevin Rudd of 2010. </p>
<p>Even as Rudd held yet another press conference after arriving in Brisbane this morning, former colleagues were speaking out against him. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8051/original/gnr3pwch-1330045680.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8051/original/gnr3pwch-1330045680.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8051/original/gnr3pwch-1330045680.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8051/original/gnr3pwch-1330045680.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8051/original/gnr3pwch-1330045680.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8051/original/gnr3pwch-1330045680.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8051/original/gnr3pwch-1330045680.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nicola Roxon: would not work with Rudd.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This morning <a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8424950/rudd-wanted-referendum-on-health-roxon">Health Minister Nicola Roxon</a> described the way he ran the government as “ludicrous”. </p>
<p>“I doubt I would be asked but I absolutely wouldn’t accept if I was,” she said. “If Kevin succeeds I won’t want to serve in his ministry but I will absolutely wish him and the government the best of luck. </p>
<p>"I will hope that he has changed and I will be there campaigning for Labor.”</p>
<p>Wayne Swan earlier this week also hit out at Rudd’s leadership style in a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/swan-continues-attack-on-rudd-a-man-of-great-weakness-20120223-1toz4.html">scathing attack</a>. Prime Minister Julia Gillard described him as <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/i-forgive-just-vote-for-me-kevin-rudd/story-fn7x8me2-1226279994854">“dysfunctional”</a>, resulting in “chaos and paralysis”. Yet others have pledged <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/ministers-urge-kevin-rudd-to-take-on-julia-gillard/story-fnccyr6m-1226279492347">their support</a>. </p>
<p>So the big question for the caucus is a question also facing many businesses - are leaders capable of really changing?</p>
<p>The answer is yes, although it’s hard to find examples.</p>
<p>Significant change to a managerial style depends on a number of things. First, like any area of personal change, the individual has to accept that they have a problem. Without this, no real progress can be made. </p>
<p>In Mr Rudd’s case, he must be willing to genuinely believe there are aspects of his leadership style that don’t work and need to be changed. Mr Rudd has been variously accused of being a micro-manager, overly-controlling and chaotic.</p>
<p>Many management education programs help participants identify strengths and weaknesses in their management styles and provide strategies for dealing with this. While this is a very confronting process, enormous results can be seen once these issues are identified. </p>
<p>Secondly, Mr Rudd must have in the past, or be willing to now, engage in self-reflection and seek feedback from others. Currently there is certainly no shortage of people pointing out his failings. </p>
<p>The ability to reflect is not an easy skill to develop, nor is it easy to gain the trust of others so they will give honest feedback. We are often too busy “doing” to take time to think about what we did and identify ways to improve next time.</p>
<p>Thirdly a self awareness of his natural leadership style is important. We all tend to adopt a management style that we are more comfortable with. Bob Hawke was the consensus builder while Mr Rudd’s colleagues seem to suggest he displays more “command and control” tendencies. </p>
<p>Command and control may be okay in the heat of battle, but it isn’t the greatest way to motivate people and foster creativity. Even the armed forces are changing. </p>
<p>Being aware of the type of leader you are is a critical step in any effort to modify that style. Mr Rudd may never be the easygoing boss other individuals can be, but being conscious of what style he is predisposed to will help him moderate that style if it clearly doesn’t work.</p>
<p>Finally, others have to believe he wants to change and has changed. He has four days to convince others, and judging by comments over the last few days, this won’t be easy. And it won’t be about words but deeds.</p>
<p>Without tangible proof he is unlikely to get the opportunity and mandate to bring about real change.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8050/original/bshxkydq-1330045311.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8050/original/bshxkydq-1330045311.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8050/original/bshxkydq-1330045311.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8050/original/bshxkydq-1330045311.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8050/original/bshxkydq-1330045311.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8050/original/bshxkydq-1330045311.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8050/original/bshxkydq-1330045311.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julia Gillard’s managerial approach is preferred by colleagues - but she is unpopular with the electorate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of course, not everything needs to change. It is equally important for any leader to understand what they do well, develop it further, and have the confidence to make it clear that there are areas of their leadership that are here to stay. We need to remember he does have support from a number of colleagues who have been pointing out his strengths in communicating with the public. </p>
<p>Whatever your opinion of the two leaders, it is clear their styles are in stark contrast to each other and this suits both to a point. However, if Rudd chooses to take the advice of his colleagues it will not serve well him to morph his leadership style into Ms Gillard’s, which is reportedly more managerial and focused on problem solving.</p>
<p>What is interesting about the current situation in the Labor party is that unlike a commercial operation, the managers (caucus) are voting for their boss. The opinion polls tell us that the majority of “customers” (in this case the voters) rate him better than the alternatives. But the management team is not so keen on him, and they ultimately are the ones who decide. </p>
<p>In business it is often said that the customer is always right, but in this case their vote doesn’t count. This week’s soap opera has therefore become more about organisational leadership style than the ability to lead the country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5554/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Styles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As a Monday showdown looms, one of the big questions being asked by members of the Labor caucus is whether Kevin Rudd in 2012 can be a different kind of the leader to the Kevin Rudd of 2010. Even as Rudd…Chris Styles, Professor and Deputy Dean, Director Australian Graduate School of Management, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55652012-02-24T01:07:29Z2012-02-24T01:07:29ZKevin Rudd’s ‘faceless men’ line isn’t accurate, but it is effective<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8048/original/rd522454-1330044873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C65%2C521%2C368&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who are you calling faceless?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">coleydude</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The greatest curiosity of the Labor leadership brawl is Kevin Rudd’s “faceless men” line, which seems to refer to prominent parliamentary colleagues with very recognisable faces. But there is method in the way he is using it.</p>
<p>When Robert Menzies described the then Labor national executive as “<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/red-fox-exposed-partys-faceless-men/story-e6frgczf-1225872615957">faceless men</a>” he was stating the obvious: the 36 people who ran the party were all men who were barely known publicly, and who took decisions in secret. Whitlam’s later reforms of the Labor machine led to open national party conferences in which the brawls and love-ins went on public display, often to the party’s embarrassment. </p>
<p>In a strategic communication sense, Kevin Rudd’s use of “faceless men” in recent days is a tactical message designed to support his long-standing argument against the faction leaders who now run the party. He is suggesting that faction leaders do their work well out of public view, including organising numbers for pre-selections, and leadership challenges. From that base his message is designed to trip the “faceless men” wire to detonate fear in Labor members, especially those who face a wipeout at the next election. </p>
<p>It was a good, media-friendly line when Menzies used it and it remains one today. Kevin Rudd has always produced good lines for the media, so why not use this one? Besides, it invokes Gough Whitlam, spurned on that cold winter’s night when the ALP executive met in Canberra while he waited for decisions outside, then sacked as Prime Minister by John Kerr. It brings to mind the sense of outrage at being done in by private deals, and the right-is-on-my-side impression that it brings.</p>
<p>But it is curious that he should use it when for the past 18 months he has himself allegedly orchestrated a “faceless” campaign to erode the prime minister’s support, and has now been found out doing it. Those he accuses of being faceless are, of course, far from it. But in politics, communicating a tactical message has little to do with consistency. It’s about sticking to the message, however pragmatic that might be, to dominate the now hackneyed 24-hour news cycle.</p>
<p>It is also curious that seasoned political journalists, once savaged regularly by Rudd and his media staff, have again fallen under his spell, reporting his “faceless men” charge almost without analysis. </p>
<p>Whether or not “faceless men” is a clapped-out line, well past its due date, it was a brilliant pre-emptive public relations strike for Rudd to adopt it before Gillard’s supporters used it against him and his. </p>
<p>Coupled with the call for people to contact their local members to support Rudd, and the “I’m the only one who can save Labor from electoral disaster” pitch, Rudd has a communication strategy being implemented with ruthless tactical efficiency. </p>
<p>He is delivering direct messages via communication channels that utilise both public (mass news media) and private (phone calls and no doubt email) methods. </p>
<p>Such is the news media’s fascination with the leadership stoush, Rudd’s messages are rarely mediated, so they directly reach voters through extensive live coverage and repetition of video of his media conferences. Here there appears to have been a strategic selection of “target publics.” </p>
<p>In a technical communication sense, voters are a secondary audience. The primary audience is the Labor MPs who will decide the leadership on Monday. The news media is a tertiary audience, but an important one, as those who influence the first two groups by deciding what messages to report.</p>
<p>Like Tony Abbott’s “the PM can’t be trusted” and “big new taxes on everything” lines, if “faceless men” is repeated enough, via different communication channels, people might believe it. </p>
<p>We’ll know by lunch time on Monday whether this strategy has worked.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Mahoney has received research funding from the ACT Department of Health and is National Secretary of the Public Relations Institute of Australia.</span></em></p>The greatest curiosity of the Labor leadership brawl is Kevin Rudd’s “faceless men” line, which seems to refer to prominent parliamentary colleagues with very recognisable faces. But there is method in…James Mahoney, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55502012-02-23T19:29:01Z2012-02-23T19:29:01ZRudd’s presidential politics vs Gillard’s Westminster wisdom: who will win out in the style battle?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8027/original/vyqxgt87-1329976510.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rudd's style is individualistic, Gillard prefers a more consultative approach.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is fitting that Kevin Rudd’s official campaign for a return to the Labor leadership commenced in the United States, for his political project is one forged in the image of what many Australians imagine American presidential politics to be like: populist, and based on a direct appeal to the people in a way that bypasses parliamentary politics. </p>
<p>Rudd’s appeal is to public opinion. Both he and his supporters argue he has the magic quality of “electability” that will enable him to defeat Tony Abbott, just as he saw off John Howard. But within the Labor caucus many view him with distrust as an egotist who went his own way and was never really “one of us”. </p>
<p>Julia Gillard, on the other hand, was born in Wales and her political appeal has echoed the themes of the Westminster tradition. That politics is about parliament. She argues that she knows how to make parliament work as demonstrated by her government’s legislative achievements. Words such as “method” and “discipline” are important in her promotion of herself as a proven performer in a Westminster system. </p>
<p>Unfortunately for the prime minister, this appeal has cut little ice with voters, in part this is because some parts of her legislative program are unpopular, such as the carbon tax. Even Labor’s apparently popular legislative initiatives, such as the mining tax and the National Broadband Network have failed to inspire. Tony Abbott has, with some success, characterised her government as the illegitimate outcome of a fusion of caucus and parliamentary dealing.</p>
<p>Labor faces a dilemma because both the Rudd and Gillard models have proved wanting. Labor MPs are still aware of how quickly the euphoria of Kevin07 ebbed. </p>
<p>At one level, Rudd can be likened to Bob Hawke. Both leaders overwhelmed sceptical caucus colleagues by the force of their appeal to voters, but neither was a great parliamentarian. Both of their rivals, Paul Keating and Julia Gillard, were masters of the parliamentary game. In the 1980s, however, Hawke’s appeal was corporatist as well as populist. His government championed a partnership with social movements, in particular the trade unions. </p>
<p>Rudd definitely lacked Hawke’s interpersonal skills, but Australian society has radically changed from the 1980s. In an individualised society in which the base for collective social action has declined, Rudd’s populism was detached from a social base. Once Kevin07 became a memory, Rudd’s appeal to a fickle electorate evaporated. Here we compare the experience of Rudd with Barack Obama. Like Rudd, Obama triumphed as an outsider who promised a new politics, like Rudd he has struggled to deliver on his promises. </p>
<p>The difference is that American society is deeply divided by chasms of ethnicity, class and culture, thus American presidents even in bad times can usually count on a solid base of support. The separation of powers and the frequency of elections means voters can blame one of the major parties when things go wrong. </p>
<p>In a time of economic crisis unhappy Europeans blame the “system” and support new populist parties of the left or right, while Americans are more likely to blame either a Democratic president, or a Republican Congress, or vice versa. Australia is currently fortunate compared to the US, even if the bitter contest between Gillard and Rudd resembles the American primaries in its viciousness.</p>
<p>In a time of prosperity, Australians celebrate their right to shift their support rapidly from one party to the other. Kevin12 or Kevin13 is unlikely to prevent the completion of this cycle. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5550/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoffrey Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is fitting that Kevin Rudd’s official campaign for a return to the Labor leadership commenced in the United States, for his political project is one forged in the image of what many Australians imagine…Geoffrey Robinson, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin UniversityDavid Lowe, Director of the Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55292012-02-23T04:43:58Z2012-02-23T04:43:58ZA foreign affair: where does Kevin Rudd’s resignation leave Australia on the world stage?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8011/original/w2wxrhmb-1329964557.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=9%2C47%2C2561%2C1642&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kevin Rudd is widely known on the international stage from his time as prime minister then foreign minister.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Foote</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Kevin Rudd’s dramatic resignation as Foreign Minister yesterday has left Australia without a permanent cabinet level representative on the world stage.</p>
<p>Trade Minister Craig Emerson will take over Rudd’s duties in the short to medium term. But the identity of the nation’s next full-time foreign minister will not be known until after next Monday’s leadership spill, and almost certainly not for some time after that as whoever wins goes about the business of forming a cabinet.</p>
<p>What does this mean for Australia? How will having a part-time foreign minister be viewed on the international stage? And was Rudd a success as foreign minister?</p>
<p>The Conversation spoke with Trevor Wilson, former ambassador to Burma, long time diplomat and ANU visiting fellow.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Is there a major problem with Australia having a stand-in foreign minister?</strong></p>
<p>Not necessarily. Craig Emerson is fairly experienced in international economic and trade affairs and he is a relatively senior person in the ministry. I think he will be taken seriously, I think he has the knowledge and he is not going to make any gross errors in policy.</p>
<p>Obviously it is better to have someone who is substantively “in the job”, but if that can’t be done, Emerson is probably the best option in terms of a stand-in.</p>
<p><strong>How will the whole situation be perceived overseas? Shouldn’t a foreign minister be above day-to-day domestic politics?</strong></p>
<p>I don’t think the foreign minister of any country should be swinging to and fro in accordance with domestic political development in his or her home country. But I think it is unrealistic to believe any foreign minister can be independent of, or isolated from, domestic political values and ideas and what the community in a particular country will support in the way of a foreign policy.</p>
<p>A foreign minister has to be well grounded in domestic views and attitudes, what the domestic electorate will support in the way of a foreign policy.</p>
<p><strong>Julia Gillard has an admitted lack of interest in foreign policy. Did this mean Kevin Rudd got more latitude than a foreign minister normally would?</strong></p>
<p>I am not sure about that. I think obviously given Kevin Rudd’s knowledge and experience he was able to play a very active and even leading role in some of the foreign policy forums that he attended [and] meetings he participated in. Indeed, you could even argue that as a former prime minister he was very influential in those bodies and settings. He may have, as they say, played above his weight.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8012/original/93m8ykpy-1329964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8012/original/93m8ykpy-1329964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8012/original/93m8ykpy-1329964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8012/original/93m8ykpy-1329964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8012/original/93m8ykpy-1329964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8012/original/93m8ykpy-1329964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8012/original/93m8ykpy-1329964577.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Craig Emerson is now temporary foreign minister.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porrit</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He was certainly committed to doing a good job for the government. He needed to demonstrate in whatever he was doing that he had the support of his prime minister because no foreign minister can do without that.</p>
<p>I’m not aware of problems in terms of his reporting back or carrying out instructions he may or may not have had from Julia Gillard as prime minister. It is not obvious that there were foreign policy problems because of any personal difficulties.</p>
<p>Julia Gillard deliberately gave Rudd some leeway, simply because of his experience and knowledge and the fact that he is well known internationally. I think it was a correct call.</p>
<p><strong>Rudd was criticised in some quarters when he was prime minister for effectively taking over the foreign minister’s role. Is this true, and was then foreign minister Stephen Smith hampered by having an experienced diplomat in Rudd as prime minister?</strong></p>
<p>I have heard this, obviously and it was also obvious that Kevin Rudd, as somebody who was very experienced in diplomacy and interested in foreign policy issues, was going to be more involved and active than other prime ministers in Australia in the past.</p>
<p>But I certainly don’t subscribe to the view that Stephen Smith was not an effective or “full-time” foreign minister. There are a number of areas where Stephen Smith made a very significant contribution. One of them is an area I know better than most, which is Burma where he made a very important statement of policy which is still the current policy for Australia.</p>
<p>He was a very cautious foreign minister and I don’t think he sought to give the role a lot of colour and flair, that’s not his style. But nevertheless I don’t think there was any question that he was not taken seriously as foreign minister. He did it for quite a long period, he certainly demonstrated his expertise across the whole range of policy areas and was a very active foreign minister. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5529/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Trevor Wilson is a member of the ACT branch of the Australian Labor Party. He is speaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the party.</span></em></p>Kevin Rudd’s dramatic resignation as Foreign Minister yesterday has left Australia without a permanent cabinet level representative on the world stage. Trade Minister Craig Emerson will take over Rudd’s…Trevor Wilson, Visiting Fellow on Burma, Dept of Political & Social Change, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55282012-02-23T02:40:35Z2012-02-23T02:40:35ZWhat happens if Kevin Rudd wins the leadership spill?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8007/original/mhjsj7xk-1329960859.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=118%2C110%2C4137%2C2719&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The leadership spill could lead to constitutional confusion if Rudd wins next week's ballot.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced this morning that she will hold a leadership ballot at 10am on Monday, to “settle once and for all” Labor’s escalating leadership crisis. </p>
<p>Kevin Rudd has not formally announced his leadership intentions, telling a Washington press conference he’ll do so on return to Australia. But the members of the Labor caucus will have to vote on Monday for their leader, and to back down from standing now would show weakness.</p>
<p>The Conversation spoke with constitutional expert Anne Twomey about the different parliamentary scenarios that could arise from a leadership spill on Monday.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Can you explain the different constitutional consequences in a hung parliament after a leadership spill?</strong></p>
<p>If Julia Gillard wins, then from a constitutional point of view there are no further issues. She would remain Prime Minister. It becomes more complicated, however, if Kevin Rudd or someone else wins. </p>
<p>What will Julia Gillard do in that circumstance? There’s three possibilities open to her, she could a) do nothing b) advise the governor-general to hold an election or c) resign as Prime Minister. </p>
<p>Now all of those lead to interesting different complications but the Prime Minister has publicly stated that she will resign if she loses the ballot on Monday so the third is the most likely scenario.</p>
<p><strong>What about that scenario where Rudd wins and Julia resigns?</strong></p>
<p>This leads to interesting constitutional questions for the governor-general as to who to appoint as prime minister to replace her. It’s not a <em>fait acomplit</em> that she would appoint whoever won the leadership ballot. Constitutional convention requires her to appoint the person who is most likely to hold the support of a majority of the House of Representatives. Who that person is, will depend upon the independents.</p>
<p>If Rudd got the support of the independents, he could continue to govern without an election if the governor-general appointed him as Prime Minister. But he could also face a vote of no-confidence on the floor of parliament, which he would need to survive to keep on governing. </p>
<p><strong>What if he can’t get the cross-benchers’ support?</strong></p>
<p>If the support of the cross-benchers is unknown or unclear, the governor-general could defer making a decision on a new Prime Minister and leave it to the floor of the parliament to decide in whom it has confidence. </p>
<p>A parliamentary vote is the clearest and most democratic evidence of the support of the House. It would avoid any suggestion of bias or the exercise of discretion on the part of the governor-general and maintain the independence of her office.</p>
<p><strong>What about if the independents support Tony Abbott?</strong></p>
<p>If the independents didn’t support the winner of the ballot and did show support for the leader of the opposition, then the governor-general could indeed choose the leader of the opposition to form a government. And then the most likely outcome would be for the leader of the opposition to advise the governor-general to call an election.</p>
<p>Really it’s up to the independents. If they decided that an election would be the best thing for the country, they could support Tony Abbott and once he became Prime Minister, he would most likely seek an election. However, the independents have a very strong self-interest in keeping the government going, because as soon as an election is held, some may well lose their seats, and those that survive will lose their importance if there is a new majority government. </p>
<p>On that basis, it’s fairly likely that they would want to retain the current government, whoever the leader is. On the other hand, the thing about independents is they are independently-minded and somewhat eccentric. That means predicting their behaviour, apart from self-interest, is rather difficult. </p>
<p><strong>Can you recall a period in constitutional history in which we’ve seen similar circumstances arise?</strong></p>
<p>It’s quite difficult to think of something exactly on par. There have been some examples of parliamentary leaders losing the support of their party before, but normally the party is in a clear majority, as was the case with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen#Resignation">Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s government</a>.</p>
<p>Probably the closer examples would have occurred during World War I, when the Labor party split over conscription. And in that circumstance, in NSW and at the national level, the Prime Minister and Premier lost the support of their party but still managed to continue in office. </p>
<p>But in those circumstances you had a war, and there was a very strong motive for parties to join together in a united government to support the war effort. That’s how Holman survived in NSW, and Billy Hughes jumped ship and joined with the opposition party at the national level. </p>
<p>Today we have a very different position with the dangerous combination of minority government, unpredictable independents and leadership instability. </p>
<p>It’s a potentially explosive situation. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consulting work for Commonwealth and State governments and inter-governmental bodies. </span></em></p>Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced this morning that she will hold a leadership ballot at 10am on Monday, to “settle once and for all” Labor’s escalating leadership crisis. Kevin Rudd has not formally…Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55362012-02-23T02:07:13Z2012-02-23T02:07:13ZThe messiah or a very naughty boy? Kevin and Julia’s war of the words<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8009/original/srkq4nvd-1329961661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C335%2C2826%2C1966&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rudd might think he's the messiah, but Gillard begs to differ.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>He’s not the messiah … or is he?</p>
<p>This morning Nicola Roxon went to the heart of the matter when <a href="http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Politics/2012/02/23/Rudd_is_no_messiah_-_Roxon_721462.html">she said of Kevin Rudd</a>, “he’s not the messiah”. Most of us were hoping that she’d complete the statement with a tip of the hat to Monty Python by saying he was “a very naughty boy”. Nonetheless, her other comments made clear that he was very much this and more.</p>
<p>But at a rhetorical level, the messiah question is very much in the air. In <a href="http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/kevin-rudd-press-conference/xlwe3dt">this morning’s exchanges</a>, Rudd declared himself “the one” to defeat Tony Abbott. He was the one with credentials and experience to steer us through the dark valley of a world financial crisis that was far from over, and the one to heal wounds between business and workers. (Was there even a hint of carpentry in his reminder that he insists on an Australia of manufacturing, where we “make things”?) </p>
<p>And his tale of what had happened since he stepped down as prime minister was a tale of what happens when you stray from the straight and narrow path that leadeth unto political success. Education reforms had been unravelled, Asian engagement neglected, health reforms had come unstuck, and the soul-searching that needed to continue for the spiritual health of the Labor party had been neglected.</p>
<p>By contrast, the key tones of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-23/gillard-calls-leadership-ballot/3847454">Gillard’s press conference</a> suggested less a messiah than an effective manager at the helm, with more worthy (but perhaps also dull?) aims of building a stronger, fairer Australia.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8010/original/q3nyycdy-1329962726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/8010/original/q3nyycdy-1329962726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=822&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8010/original/q3nyycdy-1329962726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=822&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8010/original/q3nyycdy-1329962726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=822&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8010/original/q3nyycdy-1329962726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1033&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8010/original/q3nyycdy-1329962726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1033&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/8010/original/q3nyycdy-1329962726.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1033&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gillard likes to focus on getting things done.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There was plenty to strike chords with a Labor heartland, but the other qualities on display went to strong management. Key words were “fortitude”, “courage”, “method”, and “stoicism”, as well as a sense of calm under pressure. </p>
<p>And, in answering questions, these qualities increasingly became the means by which she distinguished herself from Rudd, the former lord of “chaos”, “paralysis” and “mess”. Throughout the dysfunctional times of Rudd as prime minister, Gillard portrayed herself as a deputy who was the rock of stability, the “go to” person who steered the ship through stormy seas.</p>
<p>Senior politicians need to wield words effectively. Leaders, in particular, spend much of their time persuading different groups – key electorates, the party faithful, nervous members in marginal seats, and party colleagues – that their way is the right way. </p>
<p>We have two very different styles at work at the moment. Rudd is appealing over the head of the caucus, in a populist manner, with the promise of messianic deliverance. </p>
<p>Gillard, on the other hand, is speaking a language attuned to Labor roots, full of fairness, inclusion, families and lashings of reform. Good management is uppermost in order to realise these things and keep Abbott out. </p>
<p>She wants to avoid the clunkiness that can come from staying doggedly at this level (remember, in the Life of Brian, the troubles besetting the Judean Peoples’ Front, or was it the Peoples’ Front of Judea?). </p>
<p>Broad-based electoral appeal will remain one Rudd’s key considerations over the next few days, but Gillard’s rhetoric of effective management can also work effectively at this party level. </p>
<p>In effect, Gillard is happy to declare that she’s not the messiah, but nor is Rudd, and we are invited to complete that Pythonesque sentence on what, in fact, he really is. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5536/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>He’s not the messiah … or is he? This morning Nicola Roxon went to the heart of the matter when she said of Kevin Rudd, “he’s not the messiah”. Most of us were hoping that she’d complete the statement…David Lowe, Director of the Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55232012-02-23T00:58:02Z2012-02-23T00:58:02ZPolitics trumps policy in Labor’s leadership battle<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7999/original/9ns2g7w3-1329959009.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Julia Gillard addressed the leadership crisis at a press conference in Adelaide this morning.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC News24</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The leadership contest between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd is largely a clash of personalities and a raw struggle for power, and there is essentially little policy difference between them. </p>
<p>But should Kevin Rudd return to the position of Prime Minister, there is the potential for <em>some</em> changes to policy, given the occasional hints Rudd has indicated in some of his past and recent statements.</p>
<p>One of the most prominent recent policy spats has been over the proposed poker machine reforms. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie notably <a href="https://theconversation.com/gillard-bets-the-house-while-wilkie-walks-over-pokie-reform-4991">ended his pledged support</a> for the Gillard Government over what he perceived was a weak compromise on tackling problem gambling. Rudd is keen to take stronger action on the pokies, and therefore shore up support from Wilkie. That said, this would cause some consternation among Labor MPs in marginal seats under pressure from the gaming industry.</p>
<p>Rudd has previously warned that Labor was moving <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/change-of-leaders-to-signal-new-asylum-path/story-fn9hm1gu-1226275200215">too far to the right</a> on asylum seekers, and so may seek a deal with the Greens to permanently return to onshore processing of asylum seekers. However, this will do little to defuse the issue, as this position will continue to be relentlessly attacked by the Opposition.</p>
<p>While the carbon tax legislation is set to be implemented from July, Rudd may face pressure from various industries, such as the coal, steel, power and mining industries for greater compensation. This could either come through a lower set price for carbon, or great tax credits or concessions. </p>
<p>There is potential that Rudd could fold under a concerted campaign to modify the carbon tax, as was the case with the mining tax. He may also increase support for the car industry, and potentially seek greater government subsidies or tax concessions for manufacturing as a whole. </p>
<p>Health reforms may be also subject to review, with Rudd possibly wanting to attempt to restart the negotiation process with the conservative state governments, in order to get greater coordination in allocating health funding.</p>
<p>Foreign and defence policy would likely see no substantial changes. Rudd would continue to take a strong personal influence over foreign affairs, as he did when Prime Minister.</p>
<p>Overall though, the major policy direction of Labor would remain much the same under either Rudd or Gillard. </p>
<p>Either leader would attempt to push the government’s main potential strength, which is the relatively successful performance of the Australian economy, with its comparatively low level of unemployment, inflation, and healthy economic growth, largely due to the Asian-driven mining boom. Bringing the budget back into surplus would remain a key policy goal, with the political strategy of attempting to expose the inconsistencies in the Opposition’s fiscal position. </p>
<p>The fundamental political failing of Labor has been its inability to sell this record of economic management, and translate this into wider political popularity, as has been reflected in its continually dire position in the opinion polls. </p>
<p>If Rudd is returned, there may be a brief “bounce” of support, which may lift Labor’s primary vote. It remains doubtful, though, that Labor’s leadership tensions and instability will fade, regardless of the outcome of Monday’s ballot. </p>
<p>Ultimately, personality and power seems set to override any substantial policy debate in Australian politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5523/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Mark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The leadership contest between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd is largely a clash of personalities and a raw struggle for power, and there is essentially little policy difference between them. But should…Craig Mark, Associate Professor of International Studies, Kwansei Gakuin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55242012-02-22T23:25:01Z2012-02-22T23:25:01ZDecoding Kevin Rudd’s leadership intentions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7986/original/rzpsjskd-1329951266.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=66%2C37%2C2465%2C1374&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kevin Rudd has said Julia Gillard is not the best person to lead Labor to the next election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC News24</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Less than 12 hours after making his dramatic resignation in Washington, Rudd was back at the lectern. This time, however, his speech sounded more like a campaign pitch.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Watch part of Kevin Rudd’s conference this morning <a href="http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/kevin-rudd-press-conference/xlwe3dt">here</a></strong></p>
<hr>
<p>The well-crafted piece was a return of the classic Rudd. He sought to position himself as a prime ministerial statesman speaking in a controlled and deliberate tone. More than that, modesty took a back seat as he painted himself as a great leader. Rudd revealed that many believed that he could “save” the Labor Party and avoid the seemingly inevitable election loss that would occur with Julia Gillard at the helm.</p>
<p>Rudd also sought to claim the high moral ground by expressing his disdain for the chorus line of ministers bagging his leadership style over the last couple of days. He said that he was “shocked and disappointed by the tone and content of the personal attacks” and that he did not believe “these sort of attacks have a place in our political life”. In a move to try to cement his position as a somewhat powerful, yet merciful, political operator, Rudd urged his own supporters “not to retaliate”.</p>
<p>An interesting feature about the Gillard-Rudd battle thus far has been how opinion polls have been driving the debate. Indeed, it was a series of poor opinion polls that contributed to Rudd losing the prime ministership in the first place. It is therefore somewhat ironic that Rudd, and his supporters, have used the same polls to undermine Gillard’s prime ministership.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>More coverage:</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/rudd-should-not-have-been-allowed-to-stay-now-the-alp-is-paying-for-its-mistake-5520">Rudd should not have been allowed to stay – now the ALP is paying for its mistake</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/ambitions-to-lead-labor-as-kevin-rudd-quits-as-foreign-minister-5517">Ambitions to lead Labor as Kevin Rudd resigns as Foreign Minister</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/rudds-resignation-moves-labor-closer-to-the-end-game-5519">Rudd’s Resignation moves Labor closer to the end game</a> </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/kevin-rudd-resignation-expert-reaction-5518">Kevin Rudd resignation: experts reaction</a></p>
<hr>
<p>Not only did Rudd spruik his leadership credentials, he also presented himself as a man of vision. Interestingly, Rudd chose to highlight policies that he would presumably pursue if he was to become prime minister again.</p>
<p>Rudd lamented the fact that the government had discontinued the halving of HECS fees for some university courses. He was also pushing for a greater emphasis on teaching Asian languages in Australian schools. He was presenting himself as a man of policy, not just personality.</p>
<p>Rudd was also eager to present his recent actions in a positive light. As he put it, the “question of the future of the leadership of our party and our country is not about personality”, rather it was “about trust and it’s also about policy and vision”. He ended the address with the famous “I’ve gotta zip” line.</p>
<p>Rudd’s speech would seem appealing to some backbenchers who have yet to commit to either camp Gillard or Rudd. With a leadership spill to occur next week, Rudd has given himself every chance to present a positive message to caucus. </p>
<p>No doubt part of Rudd’s allure for many in the government will be the “hope” he gives that the Labor Party may actually win the election with his leadership. But he faces an uphill battle and will be working his phone to melting point over the coming days to try to garner a credible level of support if he wishes to mount a challenge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5524/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Less than 12 hours after making his dramatic resignation in Washington, Rudd was back at the lectern. This time, however, his speech sounded more like a campaign pitch. Watch part of Kevin Rudd’s conference…Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/55202012-02-22T11:04:19Z2012-02-22T11:04:19ZRudd should not have been allowed to stay – now the ALP is paying for its mistake<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7985/original/5dbb9z7p-1329908300.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rudd's been incendiary since he was replaced as leader.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tony Phillips</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>From the time Julia Gillard succeeded Kevin Rudd as prime minister there was a ticking time bomb that no one thought to defuse. </p>
<p>His promised inclusion in a cabinet whose membership was instrumental in deposing him was bizarre in itself, especially given very detailed knowledge of how Rudd had ruthlessly undermined his Labor predecessor, Kim Beazley, and his known penchant for vindictiveness. And why did the ALP hierarchy not seek to dissuade him from recontesting his seat after he was ousted?</p>
<p>The fact the party kept Rudd within the tent was a major mistake. Those who had worked closely with him and who had deserted him well knew that he was incapable of working as part of a team, which was precisely why he had been deposed.</p>
<p>One has only to go back to the widely disseminated image of an ashen-faced Rudd, wallowing in visual self pity as he sat on the backbench after being deposed, to see that this was trouble in the making. </p>
<p>The last time a deposed prime minister accepted office under a successor was in 1971 when Billy McMahon toppled John Gorton in a party room vote which then inexplicably elected Gorton as deputy leader, guaranteeing him portfolio of his choice. Gorton opted for defence in which he used his position to settle scores, five months later forcing McMahon to sack him for disloyalty.</p>
<p>The main reasons for replacing Rudd – which Gillard has never been able to articulate to the Australian people, to her continuing disadvantage – were first, doubts about his ability to win the next election after a spectacular decline in the opinion polls, and, second, Rudd’s inability to work as part of a team.</p>
<p>As long as he remained in parliament, and more importantly, as a member of a cabinet the majority of whose members would rather not have him there, there was always a focal point for trouble, whether it was from Rudd’s own ambition or from discontent from Gillard’s leadership.</p>
<p>And that trouble has materialised as the government’s fortunes have declined. Rudd has become, almost inevitably, the lightning rod for internal dissent from demoted ministers such as Robert McClelland and Kim Carr, and ministers frustrated with their portfolios, such as Chris Bowen in immigration. Other members in marginal seats, such as NSW members Janelle Saffin and Mike Kelly, have been targeted by the gambling industry over Gillard’s now abandoned gaming reforms.</p>
<p>There is little doubt Rudd has worked to destabilise the government, and his Washington resignation speech, so full of unctuous self promotion, was nothing if not a job application, addressed to the same people who decided less than two years ago that he was not up to it.</p>
<p>Next week, it now seems, will determine whether Rudd gets another chance, without any sign of change from what he was, or whether Gillard can rid herself of the shadow that has continued to dog her prime ministership.</p>
<p>Either way – or even with a compromise candidate such as Simon Crean emerging – the best Labor can hope for is to stem the bleeding rather than avert the looming train wreck, whenever the election is fought.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5520/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Norman Abjorensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From the time Julia Gillard succeeded Kevin Rudd as prime minister there was a ticking time bomb that no one thought to defuse. His promised inclusion in a cabinet whose membership was instrumental in…Norman Abjorensen, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Economics and Government , Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.