Fat Pat vs Mini-Moonface
So, it's on. Bring it, beeyotch, and so forth.BEAZLEY
Pros:
- Experience, including time in actual government.
- Stable, don't-frighten-the-horses sort of leader - strong contrast to Latham.
- During second bout of leadership, Labor has remained electorally competitive (according to opinion polls, anyway).
- Incumbency - there is overall a stronger image of unity so long as he's left alone until the election.
Cons:
- Sort of guy whose current cerebral dodginess could lead to a statement like this:
"I, Kim Davies, feel I have the experience to lead the Labor Pains into the next erection, and while I have full confidence in Kevin Federline, I don’t believe he has quite the inexperience I haven’t not got or didn’t ever not have."
- Tool of the NSW Right, the puss-y infection of the ALP largely responsible for its current state(s) of disrepute.
- Two-time loser. Has an aura of "destined to be professional Opposition Leader, never PM" about him.
- Jenny Macklin as deputy.
RUDD:
Pros:
- Good parliamentary performer - has rightly taken strips off Downer.
- Julia Gillard as potential deputy.
- Fresh blood.
- Better at 10-second sound bytes for the 6pm news than Beazley.
Cons:
- Downer factor: Essentially not a particularly likeable guy. Comes across in that same, twerpy-little-private-school-toff-you-just-wanna-smack-around-the-head sort of way.
- Doesn't have that weathered, man-of-people factor projected by (at least initially) Hawke and Keating.
- Even his own colleagues apparently don't like him much. Doesn't inspire much confidence that his leadership will be solid (but then again, Howard's never been particularly well-liked by any of his minions, either).
- Would have to build his leadership image and cred in less than 12 months. And we all remember how disastrously that worked out for the last late-minute appointed leader.
- Strong Christian. Has previously said enough about separating personal beliefs from electoral responsibilities for me to think this may not necessarily be a major problem, but also seems just a little too keen for Labor to re-claim God - including Fundies First and other assorted nuts.
BIGGER PICTURE: Neither Rudd nor Beazley can win the next election - it's a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic right now.
VERDICT: Keep Beazley to lead them to inevitable defeat in 2007 - with hopefully at least the Senate reverting back to non-Government control as one small saving grace - then shaft him and Macklin for Rudd and Gillard, to give the new guy 3 solid years to build his image.
posted by Sam @ Friday, December 01, 2006
8 Comments:
awww c'mon penguin! I rekcon Rudd is a no hoper too - I reckon Gillard is the go! She'd be great
Unfortunately your verdict doesn't take into account Labor's great white hope for the next parliament, one Bill Shorten. So if Rudd wants a crack, he has to move now, because the roosters and their NSW right support-base are all gagging for Shorten to be their next contender.
I don't think the religious aspect of Rudd is that bad—as long as he can harness some of the "moderate" Hillsong types (if there is such a thing) into voting "left" surely that can't be a bad thing?
Tom: I like Gillard too, but I think in order for her to make a leadership pitch she'll need DL experience under her belt. It's that much harder for her given she'll be aiming to be the first ever female Labor leader, indeed PM, and I can't see her making the leap without DL or shadow Treasurer experience, at least.
Skander: That would be the dream, (re Hillsong moderates, assuming any exist) - can just never see it happening.
Don't forget, the current member for the Blacktown (far-west Sydney) seat, which went Liberal for the first time ever last election, is held by a woman whose previous career was Hillsong counsellor. The ties between the two organisations are just too entwined.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the QLD factor, which I think is a real positive for Rudd. Certainly negates Kim's WA factor, which itself is suffering under a WA-Inc cloud, which he recently refused to dispel.
So if Rudd is hopeless and unelectable now what's going to change 3 years from now?
There was a time when Howard was considered hopeless and unelectable anon. The passage of time can always help significantly.
Bring on the Rudd/Gillard team, I say, but what would I know? I thought Mark Latham was the breath of fresh air Labor needed to trounce prime miniature Howard
Great sshare
Post a Comment
<< Home