The American Spectator : Labor's Love Lost Down Under

Text Size

Labor's Love Lost Down Under

By Aaron Goldstein on 2.22.12 @ 6:07AM

Progressive infighting that puts Republican disagreements to shame.

It may seem to both casual and experienced observers that the Republican primary race has thus far been a rough and tumble blood sport, with more pints left to be spilled. But compared with the bone crushing, rugby style of Australia's governing Labor Party; the GOP proceedings seem like a game of touch football by comparison.

For more than a decade, Australia had been governed by the conservative Liberal Party in partnership with the smaller, agrarian National Party. The Liberal/National coalition was led by John Howard who was elected to four consecutive terms becoming the second longest serving prime minister in Australia's history. But Howard stuck around for one term too many and was defeated at the polls in November 2007, even losing his own seat in Australia's House of Representatives. The Australian Labor Party was back in power and Kevin Rudd, who had been chosen leader of the official opposition the previous year, became its new Prime Minister.

However, the Rudd era proved to be short lived. In June 2010, after less than a full term in office, Rudd had lost public support as well as the confidence of the Labor Party caucus in the House of Representatives and of Labor Party power brokers. Rudd had alienated former allies with his autocratic governing style and with his energy policies in particular. Rudd had attempted to enact a carbon emissions trading scheme (re: cap and trade) that he was ultimately forced to abandon and then subsequently engaged in a row with mining companies over a super profits tax.

Because of this Rudd would end up facing a challenge from Julia Gillard, his deputy prime minister. Although Rudd had initially planned to take Gillard head on, when it was clear he did not have the needed votes he stepped aside and resigned both as Labor Party leader and as prime minister. Rudd was out; Gillard was in. Imagine if Hillary Rodham Clinton had organized a bloodless coup against President Obama. No doubt President Obama is thankful there is no parliamentary system in the United States.

Alas, Gillard does not have the luxury of separation of powers and she could now find herself in Rudd's position after less than two years in office. Although Gillard managed to be elected in her own right in August 2010, she did so by the narrowest of margins. Both Labor and the Liberals, now led by Tony Abbott, each won 72 seats and Australia had its first hung parliament in seven decades. However, Gillard managed to find a coalition partner in the Australian Green Party to give her a narrow parliamentary majority. Gillard also kept Rudd in the cabinet as her Minister of Foreign Affairs in a classic case of "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer."

But it very much remains to be seen if Gillard has the wherewithal of Sun Tzu, never mind Michael Corleone. As Tony Bramston, a former speechwriter for Rudd, put it, "I think Kevin Rudd has been campaigning for a return to the leadership, almost from the day he lost it." It would appear that Gillard didn't keep Rudd nearly close enough. But given the circumstances under which Rudd was forced from office, it appeared that Rudd was merely biding his time. It became a question of when rather than if he would do to Gillard what Gillard had done to him.

Indeed, Gillard's popularity began to decline in earnest last July for pursuing energy policies similar to Rudd's, most notably a carbon tax. Gillard's popularity has not recovered and her fate became uncertain over the weekend when a Labor MP named Darren Cheeseman publicly said that not only should Gillard resign but Rudd should get his old job back. No doubt Gillard found Cheeseman's intervention to be quite grating.

While Rudd has not issued a formal challenge thus far, Gillard's supporters aren't taking any chances and have vociferously criticized Rudd both overtly and covertly. A videotape was leaked of Rudd swearing like a sailor while he was prime minister, much to his embarrassment. It is hard to imagine that a Gillard ally wasn't responsible for that footage coming to light. Gillard's supporters have gone as far as to say that if Rudd becomes prime minister again, the Labor government will fall and force an early election.

Perhaps the most outspoken Labor MP against Rudd is Simon Crean, who recently accused Rudd of being disloyal and challenged him to "put up or shut up." Yet it appears that Crean has his own agenda, as he was leader of the Labor Party from 2001 to 2003. (He would abruptly resign after losing support of his caucus and the party establishment due to low poll numbers against Prime Minister Howard and did not get a chance to contest an election.) If Labor cannot go forward with either Gillard or Rudd, Crean could present himself as a compromise candidate. Whoever prevails, it is clear there is no love lost amongst Labor.

Of course, the person who benefits the most from this row on the Labor front benches is none other than Tony Abbott. So long as there is instability as to who exactly is leading the Australian government, the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition needn't say a word. With each passing day, Abbott looks more and more like a viable alternative by default, and if an early election comes to pass it would be the Liberal Party's to lose. Australians are longing for the sort of reliable, stable government they had under John Howard and might be eager to give Abbott a decisive mandate. With each passing day, it is clear the Labor Party cannot govern itself, never mind Australia.

About the Author

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (22) | Leave a comment

Liv| 2.22.12 @ 10:17AM

Rudd never lost the support of the Australian people. We are still bewildered at his ousting after we elected him, and that's why Gillard doesn't stand a chance at the next election. We're tired of the machinations behind the scenes and the personality assassination by Gillard's Ministers; they are a disgrace to our country.

Aaron Goldstein| 2.22.12 @ 10:29AM

Well, in light of Rudd's resignation as Foreign Minister today, he might very well get his revenge whether a) he becomes Prime Minister once again or b) he triggers an election and the folks Down Under return the Liberals to power.

Liv| 2.22.12 @ 11:01AM

I think some of the more distasteful comments today from Gillard's ministers have been due to the fact Rudd out-strategised them! But yes, one way or another this has to be settled, and in my opinion the only way that can be accomplished is through a general election. Under Gillard Labor will be decimated; under Rudd they may retain enough seats to fight another day.

Derek Leaberry| 2.22.12 @ 1:54PM

Although an interesting overview of Australian politics, Mr. Goldstein doesn't explain John Howard's defeat in any detail at all. Howard wasn't drubbed by Labour because he had stayed in office too long. Howard foolishly went along with George W. Bush's Iraqi escapade and paid the price in 2007 after a supermajority of Australians determined that the Iraqi War was a fiasco as had a supermajority of Americans. The messianic George W. Bush would prove as toxic to the Liberal/National Alliance as it had the Republican Party.

Moe Blotz| 2.22.12 @ 2:33PM

That's good, John Howard's demise was Bush's fault. Derek, you should work for Barry the Pretender.

Brian Richard Allen| 2.23.12 @ 3:27PM

.... That's good, John Howard's demise was Bush's fault. Derek, you should work for Barry the Pretender ....

Bloody dags, aren't they?

The world's Bush Derangement sufferers.

Aaron Goldstein| 2.22.12 @ 2:52PM

Howard's support for the War in Iraq was not as significant a factor in his defeat as you might believe. What hurt Howard more than anything else was his restructuring of industrial relations in his final term in office which severely weakened unions and with it a lot of his support. In America, you had Reagan Democrats. In Australia, you had Howard's Battlers which were largely blue-collar, unionized workers.

When Kevin Rudd became Labor Party leader in 2006 he proved to be far more centrist, moderate and electable than his three predecessors Kim Beazley, Simon Crean and Mark Latham.

Derek Leaberry| 2.22.12 @ 3:29PM

Thank you for your information. As you know, Australian politics is poorly covered in America. Perhaps it would have been better said that the Iraqi War was part of the bad political music that brought down the Liberals in 2007 and the GOP in 2006.

Liv| 2.22.12 @ 10:48PM

Howard was also found to be lying about the "children overboard" affair and the Australian people judged him on that was well. That's also why Ms Gillard is so disliked in her own country.

cicero| 2.22.12 @ 7:31PM

It always amazes me when the electorate trades the prosperity of conservatism for the liberals, then are shocked when the libs spend their time fighting over who gets to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic they propose to build. Once they are all treading water again, the voters go back to the conservatives, and complain until it is time for another change. I think it is a matter of congenitally defective memory disorder.

albert constantine jr.| 2.22.12 @ 9:44PM

the triumph of handout over experience

Brian Richard Allen| 2.23.12 @ 3:31PM

(Il)Liberalism* is a Psychosis.

(*Socialism, if you're an Aussie)

Alphonse| 2.26.12 @ 1:12AM

The "prosperity of conservatism", Cicero, is a myth. The US did better under Clinton than under Reagan or the Bushes. Conservatism gave us the global financial crisis. Only the extremely wealthy prosper uder conservatism.

Jeremy Buxton| 2.22.12 @ 9:00PM

A perceptive article. Kevin Rudd is not the innocent victim of faceless men. He was highly popular for the first two years of his term but in 2010 he badly mishandled a greedy socialistic mining tax, while running away from his earlier commitment to climate change. (The right decision made for wrong weak motives). He had alienated the majority of his colleagues by his autocratic and chaotic governing style. Since his removal he has been a vengeful destabilser.

Julia Gillard is a more pleasant human being but has been deceptive and lacking authority as PM. She holds power because two "conservative" independent MPs ignored the majority of their voters and kept Labor in office. She foolishly made an unnecessary pact with the far-left Greens who would never have put the Liberal-Nationals in power, and the crazy Green tail now wags the Labor dog.

Will the dog now return to its own vomit and resurrect a failed leader?

albert constantine jr.| 2.22.12 @ 9:46PM

Didn't I see a video of a bunch of Greens chasing her yelling "Shime, Shime, Shime"?

Liv| 2.22.12 @ 10:58PM

I must say I cannot agree in any sense with your assessment of Ms Gillard as a "pleasant human being". She has lied to the electorate and to her parliamentary colleagues, she was forced into leading (and I use the term loosely) a minority Government, and has continued her deceptive and highly orchestrated behaviour ever since, viz. the Four Corners debacle. She cannot answer any question honestly, is doing so poorly in the polls I despair of Labor getting any seats in the next Government. She needs to stand up and be counted and stop relying on the "faceless men" of Labor to pull the strings to keep her in parliament. Indeed, in my opinion she is a liability, both as PM and as an MP.

Rudd may be disliked by SOME of his colleagues, but he is well thought of out in the electorate, something Labor seems to have forgotten. As I saw today, is it best to work with someone you don't particularly like, or is it better to be unemployed? That's the decision Labor MPs are facing.

Liv| 2.22.12 @ 11:01PM

PS: Ms Gillard is unelectable, let's not forget that fact.

grant1863| 2.23.12 @ 12:52PM

I saw a pic a month or so ago where the Aussie Secret Service had to rescue Ms. Gillard and she looked so unstatemanslike, more like a crying little girl. Could be wrong.

grant1863| 2.23.12 @ 12:55PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201.....ue/3795354

Brian Richard Allen| 2.23.12 @ 3:21PM

.... the Aussie Secret Service (equivalent) had to rescue Ms. Gillard and she looked like a crying little girl ....

Had to rescue her from a riot insidiously incited by and staged by her office and whose intended target was the leader of Australia's Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott.

If there has ever been a less competent and/or more Machiavellian "leader" of an Australian political party, he has so far escaped my notice!

Brian Richard Allen| 2.23.12 @ 3:11PM

.... Although Gillard managed to be elected in her own right in August 2010, she did so by the narrowest of margins ....

Bit of a stretch to say so, I reckon.

Mz Gillard's gang garnered about 750,000 fewer votes than did the conservative parties but subsequently "won" government by buying the support of and subordinating the interests of the nation to the Marxist "Greens" and to a trio of self-serving "independents" who were anything but.

Oz| 2.24.12 @ 1:04AM

Two things to clarify:

1. The main reason why Labor won was because of a campaign by the union movement. The Liberal/National Coalition got control of both the House of Representatives and Senate and introduced draconian anti-union laws. The campaign ran by the union movement propelled Labor into Government. Ignoring that is something too many people to.

2. The Greens were only one group that gave Labor a majority in the House of Representatives (the Greens only had 1 MP). They got the support of three other independents which gave them the necessary seats to form a majority.