Beazley in trouble.

[Matilda]

Reading political comment today, it seems that nobody has been impressed by Kim Beazley's failure
to back Simon Crean for pre-selection in Hotham. And Crean's decisive win (196-88)has proved that
Beazley's political judgment was way off beam.

And Julia Gillard in last night's Australian Story left it in no doubt that she thinks Beazley was
dead wrong, and she didn't rule out in any way that she would one day be a contender for the
leadership.

If you missed it, here's a link - the first part is her early life, but the second part is about
politics, and in her usual way, she's as honest as a politician can be about some of her colleagues:

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2006/s1585300.htm


And this from today's SMH on Beazley and Crean:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/beazley-stung-by-creans-big-win/2006/03/06/1141493609783.html


I hope this may be the beginning of the end for Beazley, and that he will take the Labor Right
down with him.

[gemini_liberal]

1. I couldn't control my glee when I found out Crean won

I'd love to see him packing. However, I imagine the right still holds enough power to say "No? well how about this guy instead?" Alas I think an election loss needs to happen before we can say goodbye. It'll be enough closure for the Beazley loyalists and would be justification for a leadership change. If they clearly lose and they keep Beazley in any circumstance, Labor can go to hell. I expect the bastard to give up the leadership and quit parliament if he loses for another time.

However having said all that, Beazley isn't the problem, he is a product of the problem. It's this rediculous factionalism that needs to be removed. Labor needs to be a more open, democratic party to survive.

[no safe haven]

2. Excellent result for Simon

I’ve always liked the man, although he was a bit of a wet noodle as Labor leader. His heart is in the right place though and he’s the genuine article. As is Julia Gillard. What a woman. Labor needs more like those two. Maybe then we can get back a progressive government in 2010 (with Julia at the helm). I don’t see any change of government in 2007, unfortunately.

Beazley’s relevance has long since passed. He just doesn’t seem to get it that there’s a void to be filled here. The Australian public is feeling alienated, apathetic after 10 years of Howard. We need someone to speak for us and not someone who kowtows to corporate interests and slavishly follows the Bush agenda. Beazley dishes up more of the same fare as Howard has done, with only a slight variation on most of the major points, like terrorism and sedition, etc. Send the corporate lackeys packing, I say.

[PinkUnicorn]

3. True

Beazley’s relevance has long since passed. He just doesn’t seem to get it that there’s a void to be filled here. The Australian public is feeling alienated, apathetic after 10 years of Howard

Thats half the problem today. Both parties are just the same recycled crap, with recycled leaders, and recycled policies - there's nothing new from either of them so no one gives a damn as its tweedledum or tweedle dee. Take the recent talks of a possible India uranium deal - Jackboot is talking out both sides of his mouth and Blowhard is off with the fairies.

Julia Gillard does seem to be talking the talk, whether she can walk the walk or simply mutates into another Vanstone or 'Spot-Destroyer' I will watch with interest.

[Djinn]

4. didn't rule out she might challenge

puh-lease she's been gunning for the leadership since was preselected, as of now she comes across as honest and above the fray - she's every bit as detestible and careerist as any ALP hack

[gemini_liberal]

5. That's not fair

You mean if you have leadership ambitions you are a hack? Or is it because she is a member of the ALP???

I mean geez, some people can't give anybody a break unless they are an activist on the sidelines who shout and get nothing done.

Yes the ALP is in a horrible mess, yes their votes have been suspect for a while now and you'll definitely see me criticising its current leadership, but to say any member of the party (without even considering what wing of the party they are in, or what they stand for) is a hack is rediculous.

[Djinn]

10. it's fair

fortunately/unfortunately through both my work and my personal life I'm well aquainted with many serving and former Labor MP's and while this is simply my own opinion it's based on more than Gillard's public pronouncements, also most ALP MP's think most of their colleagues are hacks.

I still consider myself an ALP girl, even though I've not voted for them once, despite campaigning for the Greens in the last few elections I wont actually join them, I still hold out hope against hope that one day the ALP will remember what the L stands for, but as of now there's little else but hackery there - honestly, jump in see if you can stand it - don't know if you read the Latham Diaries but putting aside his personal vitriol none of it was bullshit, I havn't had a single MP/union leader or ALP staffer state in private that Latham is/was wrong

[Matilda]

6. But almost without exception most MPs on both sides will deny

leadership ambitions until they throw their hat into the ring. It's generally "I just want to serve
my constituents, perfectly happy with my present portfolio, Beazley/Howard has my complete loyalty"
even while they're running around counting the numbers.

But Gillard isn't doing that - she's not playing us for fools. She's open about her ambitions,
so when she says she won't challenge this side of an election, I'm prepared to believe her. Unless
Beazley cuts himself off at the knees (which is not beyond possibility).

[gemini_liberal]

7. Well it'd be silly to challenge Beazley at the mo

All it'd do is assure you get sent to the backbench and if and when the party loses in 07, rather than coming to the logical conclusion that it's Beazley's failed leadership, they can just scapegoat your insurrection - and use that as an argument that you and the people who share your philosophy are a danger to the modern party.

[Matilda]

8. Yep - she's not that stupid.

Besides, she needs that time to get people used to the idea of (a) a female potential leader; and
(b) a female leader who chose not to have children (shock!).

It would also take at least that long to work against the current faction system, which she's urging.
Because as things are, it's going to be a quantum leap for a woman from the left of the party to get
the nod. But if Gillard can't do it, I don't know who can.

[gemini_liberal]

9. Well speaking as a heterosexual, white male

Nothing would please me more than to cast a vote for Miss Gillard - she'd make a great leader IMO. But, alas, you're right - they're are too many people here who would never vote for a woman - especially a single childless one as you put it, and then there are those who would get turned off by the lunatic right's smear campaigns (I can already hear the unofficial whisper campaign from the lunatics on the right "Is she even straight? Because she may be one of those unaustralian dykes blah blah")

I hope she does have the sense to tread carefully, because if she is successful, it'll be a great leap for this country, if she isn't she could be another Geraldine Ferraro - ensuring that there is no chance of a female leader for a long time...