« Christmas Cake | Main | Computer Users »

December 01, 2003

Politics Down Under

We all know that "poly" means many and a "tic" is a pest. Well the many pests in Canberra are running around like "chooks with their heads cut off" (guess you need to be a farm boy to visualise that image :-) but feel free to substitute something similar).

You may recall that the leader of the alternate government (also known as the opposition) resigned on Friday when he realised that most of the electorate still didn't know who he was. According to the ABC (link via om_blog) that makes him the first Labour leader to not contest an election (I thought Hayden didn't either but I am not sure of my facts).

For non-locals (and those who have no clue), there are two main parties: Labour (unionist, nominally left of centre) and Liberal (employer, nominally right of centre). The leadership of the federal labour party is now up for grabs (and may have been decided by the time you read this). The big chance is that the existing government faces an election next year (within the next six months if my calculations are correct) and given the length of time they have been in power, there is likely to be a swing against the government. The two leading contenders are Kim Beazley (nice "family man" but not perceived as being a "strong leader") and Mark Latham ("strong leader" but definitely not a "nice man"). Personally the smart move would be to take Beazley who is well known in the electorate and should be presentable. If Latham wins, the government can run anti-Latham adverts by just quoting him. Picture this:

Black screen. White words appear, one phrase at a time. "Federal Election 2004". "Choose your candidate." Picture dissolves to Howard looking dignified (standing on a chair?) at any formal event. Picture dissolves to clip of Latham speaking: "Howard is an arse-licker". Dissolve to Howard speaking calmly in parliament. Dissolve to clip of Latham speaking: "The government is a conga-line of suck holes". Dissolve to Howard and Bush togther. Dissolve to Latham: "Bush is the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory." Fade to black. Words in white: "Your vote counts".

Note: All the Latham quotes are authentic (see this story).

So if you were nominating a new leader, would you run the risk of using Latham? I still reckon a better strategy would have been to hang on to Crean until about 8 weeks before the election. Then dump him and replace him with Latham (i.e. repeating the Hawk / Hayden play). That way there would be no time to criticise him before the election and afterwards would be too late. Now you would have to go with Beazley and who knows, maybe even I could vote for him :-)

[Obligatory Notice: This is not a paid advertisement, the author is expressing an opinion. The author normally votes National Party or Christian Democrat. The author also believes that governments are like babies nappies - if you don't change them regularly, they end up full of cr*p.]

Posted by Ozguru at December 1, 2003 05:12 PM

Comments

The SMH is running a poll about the preferred leader here. When I last checked there were 6,666 votes and it was running 38% Beazley and 61% Latham, I am guessing that the liberal voters are all voting for Latham because he will be easier to defeat in an election which means Beazley is probably in front when you consider only Labour voters.

Posted by: ozguru at December 1, 2003 05:12 PM

Ah politicians! What would we do without them to bash? This leadership thing sounds like Hobson's choice to me. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. From all I have seen Beazley might be the marginally better candidate to win an election, but you still wind up with a Labour Government, which, by definition, is a haven for all the refugees from the funny farm of single issue and "cause" politics. Best of luck Cobber!

Posted by: The Gray Monk at December 1, 2003 05:12 PM