Gillard v Rudd, Round 4

[Camikaze]

So for those interested in the soap opera that is Australian politics, a Labor party leadership ballot is to take place at 7pm AEST (in an hour) between PM Julia Gillard and ex-PM Kevin Rudd. If media reports are anything to go by (a dubious proposition at best), then Rudd stands a much better chance of being returned as leader than in Rounds 2 & 3.

To use the BBC's timeline:

• Dec 2007 - Labor wins the election, Rudd becomes PM, Gillard Deputy PM.
• Jun 2010 - Gillard challenges Rudd for the leadership and wins. Rudd had been a very popular PM up until the last months, but was despised within the party for his authoritarian leadership. So when the polls fell, the vultures swooped (so to speak).
• Aug 2010 - election (Gillard v Abbott) results in a hung parliament, Labor losses being popularly attributed to leaks from Rudd, who appeared to be seeking to undermine Gillard. Gillard forms a minority government with the support of independents. Rudd sticks around and is made Foreign Minister as a sort of pay off.
• Feb 2012 - following a whole lot of speculation, and continuous falls in the polls for Gillard, Rudd resigns as Foreign Minister and challenges for the leadership. He is unsuccessful, despite having much more public support than Gillard (and despite being miles more popular than Abbott). Rudd moves to the backbench. In the process of this leadership campaign (which lasted a few days), Labor frontbenchers/Gillard supporters engage in a character assassination campaign against Rudd, and vow to never work under him again.
• Jan 2013 - Gillard announces election for Sep 14.
• Mar 2013 - following even more speculation, due to Gillard's absolutely terrible standing in the polls (the Coalition looks to be heading for a landslide victory), frontbencher Simon Crean calls for a leadership spill. Gillard calls a spill accordingly, but Rudd doesn't stand, as he lacks the numbers. So Gillard is re-elected leader unopposed. Cabinet reshuffle, as many prominent Rudd supporters are purged.
• Jun 2013 - Rudd has been gaining momentum, with Gillard's promise of improved polling failing to materialise, and polls indicating Rudd would deliver a massive boost to Labor's primary vote.

Today, Rudd's supporters have forced a vote, which would seem to indicate they think they have the numbers (or at least this is the best opportunity yet). Rudd had vowed not to challenge for the leadership again (interpreted as meaning he'd only accept a call for his return), but has resiled from that and is standing.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Gillard leads a minority government reliant on independent support. The independents have made it clear that that support was promised to her, and not to the Labor party in general. Thus, they may switch allegiance to Tony Abbott if Rudd is made Labor leader, or, more likely, will simply not support a vote of confidence in Rudd, putting him into caretaker mode and forcing an early election (which, to be honest, is what I'm sure Rudd would be going for anyway, to make the most of any honeymoon boost in the polls; the internal Labor bickering has provided ample material for Abbott to destroy Rudd in a protracted campaign).

It gets more weird if you consider what might happen if Rudd doesn't win, but Gillard doesn't get much more than 50%. If she has such low support, she might resign and a third-party candidate could emerge. The most likely person for this role is Bill Shorten. It just so happens that he is the son-in-law of the Governor-General (Quentin Bryce), who must decide who to appoint as Prime Minister should any leadership change occur. The GG would probably have to flee the country to allow a state governor to temporarily assume her responsibilities, in order to maintain the integrity of the office.

So what do you think is going to happen (or by the time you read this thread, what do you think of what has happened)?

 

[azzaman333]

Gillard, Rudd, doesn't matter to me, don't like either of them.

 

[Tee Kay]

Turnbull4lyfe

Messy stuff. The ALP is looking very much doomed at the moment, whoever is leader.

Currently streaming ABC24 in the background

 

[Tee Kay]

Kevin Rudd 57 votes
Julia Gillard 45

 

[JohannaK]

Woah. This whole Aussie politics thing sounds like ¡FUN! stuff.

 

[metatron]

Camikaze, can you explain the "why" a bit?
As in:
a) Why are the polls that bad?
b) Why, if Rudd was such an authoritarian leader that his own party kinda dissed him, do they now want him back (say instead of someone entirely new - if they are all that unsatisfied with Gillard)?

 

[NinjaCow64]

It's Alien vs Predator. Whoever wins, we lose.

 

[Camikaze]

Camikaze, can you explain the "why" a bit?
As in:
a) Why are the polls that bad?
b) Why, if Rudd was such an authoritarian leader that his own party kinda dissed him, do they now want him back (say instead of someone entirely new - if they are all that unsatisfied with Gillard)?

Explanation is fairly difficult, because it is fairly inexplicable. This has nothing to do with policies, but with personalities. Yet it's entirely unclear why people think as they do about the personalities involved.

Gillard's stock fell largely due to the carbon tax. She campaigned in 2010 on the promise of not introducing one, but given she had to work in a minority government, Greens support was contingent on climate action. There may be a somewhat valid point about broken promises here, but this is a complaint made by people supporting a man (Abbott) would speaks of 'core promises' and 'non-core promises', only the former of which he believes he is bound to (trust has been a consistent theme, actually, largely deriving from the very abrupt way in which Rudd was deposed, or 'stabbed in the back', as many view it). Moreover, much of the opposition to the carbon tax is not on the basis that it was a broken promise (it's not like people are shocked when a politician goes back on a promise), but on the basis that it was bad for Australians. Why? It was never quite clear. There was a lot of media-driven sloganeering (the role of misogyny should not be overlooked), highlighting the real failure of Gillard; communication. The Gillard government has had so many achievements and has existed in good economic conditions, yet has abjectly failed to communicate its message, and has shot itself in the foot numerous times. It is not that the opposition has offered anything in return (they don't really have policies, but then polls suggest they don't really need them), it's that there are many self-inflicted wounds.

Poor politics actually resulted in poor policy at times, too. Labor's problems were compounded by the last budget. It was a deficit, which is actually the most economically sensible option. Economists consistently say that a surplus would send the economy into recession, which it has so far managed to avoid (an achievement the government has failed to communicate), yet Labor declared that they would produce a surplus. This was woefully unrealistic, and they didn't even get close, which simply left them open to opposition attack, and made them appear economically inept. So they managed to preside of an economy that hasn't gone into recession, yet appear to the population as poor economic managers.

The upshot is that I have absolutely no idea why on earth people think they would be better off under Abbott, or even under Rudd, but the fact remains that the polls have consistently shown that Gillard is woefully unpopular and that Labor is headed for electoral disaster. At the same time, the public seems to view Rudd with rose-tinted glasses, and he's highly popular. Polls suggest he is the only hope Labor have of not necessarily winning the election, but of at least saving some of the deckchairs. Thus the change despite the internal division (or visceral hatred of him by Labor members). It's poll-driven.

Personally, I thought Gillard was a fantastically tough leader who was great at working in a hung parliament. But she was an awful, awful communicator, and recognising that an Abbott government would be terrible (not for me; I'm safely white, male and middle class), I wanted Rudd to come back to minimise the damage.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

BBC reports Rudd ousted Gillard

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Kevin Rudd 57 votes
Julia Gillard 45

BBC reports Rudd ousted Gillard

TK reports same 2 hours 6 minutes prior.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I didnt realize that was a final vote tally.

 

[Camikaze]

So Gillard has now visited the GG and resigned, and Rudd will presumably visit the GG and be appointed soon. Presumably, though there are other theoretical possibilities.

I imagine Rudd would call an election now, so as to take advantage of the honeymoon, and limit the damage that will undoubtedly be done by the Coalition attack ads. Would also catch the Coalition with their pants down, so to speak, only have attack ads without focusing on policy.

For UK readers, it should be noted that the Labor leadership is a matter for caucus, not for party members.

For US readers, the most interesting bit of this is probably the machinations of parliamentary democracy and the role of the GG.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I didnt realize that was a final vote tally.

Just like Rudd, I saw an opportunity and took it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What does GG mean?

 

[Camikaze]

Governor-General.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So...the GG is your American overseer?

 

[JohannaK]

TK reports same 2 hours 6 minutes prior.

TK is new prime news agency on CFC.

 

[Tee Kay]

So...the GG is your American overseer?

No, that's the prime minister The Governor-General is officially the Queen's representative in Australia, and our de facto head of state. She is nominated by the prime minister, then confirmed by the Palace, and acts like a constitutional monarch.

 

[bhsup]

More or less a modern day viceroy, yes?

For US readers, the most interesting bit of this is probably the machinations of parliamentary democracy and the role of the GG.

It's just that I am so used to our Presidential system where the head of government is a stable, locked in position. Like it or not, at least you -know- who your big boss person is gonna be for the next exact set of years. Seems more stable to me. Whereas in your parliamentary systems, you've just had one political party decide for the whole country that it deserves a new leader on the global stage.

 

[Leoreth]

I think this comes from the American leader fetish fixation which is probably both the reason for and the consequence of a presidential system.

Voters in parliamentary democracies don't care that much who their leader is (they still do care, of course, or else this Australian episode wouldn't have happened), and things like party programs are more of a constant and have a stronger relevancy to how politics are conducted. And in principle, parliamentary majorities stay in power even if the leadership changes, so they are as stable as a system as presidential ones (the institution where most power is concentrated remains).

The new election is a consequence of political concerns and not of political instability.

I'm a bit confused about how you can say that one system is both more stable and at the same time allows its voters a greater influence than the others. Seems like it's one or the other.