|
Edited on Sat Nov-18-06 08:29 AM by gemini_liberal
I know I am preaching to the choir in this forum, but I believe it is time for Beazley to do the right thing and resign as leader. Failing that, it is the party's duty to remove him. I consider myself a pragmatic leftist and a Labor supporter at heart. I had accepted the fact that Kim Beazley was leader of the Labor party and decided to make best of a mediocre situation. To many, this made me appear a sell-out or something. I assure you, Beazley was not my first pick for leader, but when he became leader I accepted it. I was focused primarily on beating John Howard.
Not anymore!
I have two main problems with Kim Beazley's leadership (or lack thereof):
1. That unshakeable feeling I have that he is just keeping the seat warm for Bill Shorten.
But more importantly...
2. His uselessness. The fact that he can't convince Australia that he is a viable alternative. All he can do is complain about the Government's actions (Very lukewarmly I might add.) Yes, it's good for an opposition leader to be a critic, but that's only half the game. His approval ratings have constantly been hovering around the 25% mark - a fact I was willing to overlook as the party approval was looking good. However, it looks as though he has pissed away the ALP's lead. Keeping him on is just going to assure another Coalition landslide and an increase in the size of John Howard's fat, empty head.
It's time for the party to pressure him to step down and let someone clean up the mess - sooner rather than later. If he wants what's best for his party and his country, he'll do this with as little resistance as possible. If he doesn't go out kicking and screaming, he can be assured that he'll have a nice position in the next Labor government - a high ranking minister of some sort, perhaps.
Realistically speaking, if this happens, the two potential next leaders are: Kevin Rudd of the Right Faction and Julia Gillard of the Centre-left Faction. There are others, but these two have already got a bank of supporters.
My endorsement, both ideologically and practically goes to Ms. Gillard. I believe that we are now seeing two political phenomena occur around the world - the rise (and acceptance) of women to high positions and the pendulum starting to swing leftwards again (still a while to go before it's in full swing, but the conservative movement has definitely peaked.) I do not, however, wish to see her tackle Beazley alone - as, if she fails, an election defeat next year would be blamed on her and anyone on the "disloyal left."
This leads to my analysis of Kevin Rudd. If Someone has to tackle Beazley head-on, I would rather it be him, as it would not be a factional issue. Also, it's possible Labor Unity would have the balance of votes, and I would rather them choose Rudd over retaining Beazley. (God I hate factions! But that's another discussion for another time.) Rudd, for all his faults would be a better leader as he is much more intellectual and charismatic than Beazley. He is, however, no leftist and his attitude of bringing religion into politics does concern me a little.
This move needs to be done very soon (ie. within a few weeks) for the party to be able to move onwards and upwards. A little bit of anecdotal (<--key word there, not scientific) research has demonstrated to me that people are getting sick of Howard and the Liberals, want change, and are primarily concerned about issues that favour the ALP. However, they appear to dislike Beazley and lack a desire to elect Labor. A new leader, with a new vision may inspire those people to actively give this government the boot. Howard is vulnerable, we just need someone who can and will take him out!
|