Jonathan Green has an interesting argument over at The Drum:
Gillard’s backers must surely be political realists. They must sense the hiding that this leadership will bring to the parliamentary party come September 14. But worse, in some eyes, would be the elevation of a leader in the party hostile to various internal interests; a man, like Kevin Rudd, who would work actively to undermine and subvert traditional avenues to power and influence.
Chances are that if any other member backed by any of the traditional sources of ALP power stood against her there would be a true, sudden and deadly contest. As things stand, far from being her imminent assassin – as the gallery would insist is the case – it’s more than likely that it’s Kevin keeping Julia in her job.
How is that?
You might call this a factional power base, you might even see roots that lead to the union movement. In Rudd’s case, you would be hard pressed to detect either.
…
… Rudd is still that man apart, an MP without institutional backing and – worse in the eyes of those who filled his shoulder blades with cutlery – a man whose presence in positions of power threatens the “faceless” control of traditional party mechanisms.
Now the Liberals like to make the argument that the ALP are somehow beholden to the unions – and indeed it is. The unions founded the party and provide the bulk of the funding. The Golden Rule applies as in he who has the gold makes the rules.
Jonathan Green’s argument is two-fold: Rudd is a challenge to that rule. The “shareholders” (so to speak) don’t trust him to act in their interests. Second the apparatchiks fear that he will reorganise the internal structures and wipe away their internal pathways to greater internal authority.
Some might take the view that this is very cynical and irresponsible, government must act in the national interest, blah, blah, blah. Yes – that’s all true. But politics is a long game and it seems the power brokers are willing to sacrifice an election or three to maintain their positions.
Was it Paul Keating who said always back the horse called self-interest because it was the only one really trying? Right now the government is dysfunctional not because its members are being self-interested but rather because their self-interest and the greater interest are not aligned. Normally I’d expect the prospect of re-election to discipline internal competition, but without that prospect we can expect to see internal difficulties come to dominate the party.
Update: Here is Grace Collier talking about ALP governance – before the 2007 election.
To understand the power balance, imagine the ALP is a company. Gillard is the operations manager, Rudd is the newly appointed chief executive, and the unions are both board of directors and shareholders. And recent events have caused a hairline fracture in the relationship between the powerbrokers.
…
The Labor Party today stands as the political wing of the union movement. The union movement started the ALP, it funds the ALP and it runs the ALP. It has appointed Rudd as its public face. Ironically, though, the painful IOU it has hung around his neck could cause it significant grief.
Petty self interest might be in play. Rudd wants Gillard to fail spectacularly – it’s a good theory, and I’d like to watch!
ar
21 Feb 13 at 9:57 am
Green is right.
The only way the gordian love knot between the ALP and the unions can be severed is after an electoral armageddon; perversely, which is exactly what Labor faces through its inability to deal with this issue. There are too many union apparatchiks who have invested their whole lives in following the well-trodden path from union to the parliamentary Labor party whose reason d’être would be lost by any re-organization of the internal structures.
Brett
21 Feb 13 at 10:00 am
This has been the case since the last days of the Keating government. The culture was destroyed in opposition from 95 to 07 as that prevailing attitude was papered over by the spin tactics the Carr (& other state) government used to stay in power.
Thus, Labor delivered a hapless and inept government whose cultural goals are set in a way that prevents effective policy formulation & good government.
Token
21 Feb 13 at 10:01 am
Such as opposing the GST once they found themselves in opposition. Such relentless negativity…
ar
21 Feb 13 at 10:06 am
Watching Howes on late line last night should leave nobody under the idea that the AWU are about to support a removal of ‘their’ PM. With nothin left to fall back to, he tried the line that it was alla media beat up, despite snowcone insisting that it was government sources giving them all thei material.
They would rather lose than derail the well worn path to the gravy train. Unfortunately for a guy like Howes, he’s a 9 of hearts in the minority group poker and unlikely to get much of a chance at the top job.
brc
21 Feb 13 at 10:19 am
I think they’re waiting for a better Newspoll and to hand out some money, just as has happened before.
candy
21 Feb 13 at 10:35 am
The way Newspoll has been over the last 6 months, I wouldn’t be surprised if it gives TLS a leg up next week Candy
JamesK
21 Feb 13 at 10:41 am
Ruff was knifed by the unions and they will do everything within their considerable power to stop him reascending to the leadership. If he doesn’t return to the leadership he’s going to lose his seat anyway, so whatever happens post election won’t be of any concern to him.
Should he reascend to the leadership in the interim and lead labor to a marginally less crushing defeat (and retain his seat), his entire goal post election will be destroying the unions’ institutional influence over labor – clean slate, root and branch reform, yada, yada, yada…
Good luck with that. I just wish the f*cking election would hurry up and happen.
Rabz
21 Feb 13 at 10:43 am
I think Moose Knuckles might be reading a bit too much into it. Clearly Shorten sees no effective difference between sifting through the wreckage, no matter who was driving when the bus went off the cliff. I’m inclined to agree with the Pie Man.
H B Bear
21 Feb 13 at 10:47 am
“Was it Paul Keating who said always back the horse called self-interest because it was the only one really trying?”"
Think that was Kerry Packer…
Sentiment is 100% spot on for this mob
ugh
21 Feb 13 at 10:48 am
Labor and the unions have now been well and truly outed now. It is now clear that when the ALP holds office. The Australian Federal Parliament is subject to undue undemocratic external influence of the unions. While australians have historically understood that their was a strong relationship, i do not think that they understood that the ALP and its MP’s are now owned by the unions. While that relationship was opaque they were able to get away with it, but not anymore.
Peter
21 Feb 13 at 11:07 am
For Labor MPs it really is quite simple:
A. Look at photo of Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan.
B. Check the margin on which you won your seat last election: Percentage numero 1.
C. Assess the latest opinion polls and any polls carried out in your respective electorate and extrapolate percentage numero 2.
D. Subtract percentage numero 2 from percentage numero 1 and factor in the ‘crazy brave’ value.
E. If result D is positive, sit on your arse.
F. If result D is negative, look at photo of Kevin Rudd and Bill Shorten and guess which loser has your best chance of making result D positive.
G. Brace for impact.
Ant
21 Feb 13 at 11:19 am
By George, I think he’s got it.
However, Rudd would replace union thuggery/incest with a clique of bureaucratic mandarins, ‘experts’ and professional sycophants, whose rule may actually be worse.
In his time in office, Rudd showed he had a late Roman Empire approach to leadership: surrounded by yes-men and toadies, isolated from anyone with actual experience and ability, fuelled by control-freakery and tantrums, and burning through underlings at a scary rate. If the Gillard government is in its Hitler’s-bunker stage, Rudd’s end would have looked like the sack of Rome.
Ultimately, none of this would really have mattered if he’d also been a sound financial and economic manager. However, he and the late Roman Emperors weren’t much chop in that department either.
Philippa Martyr
21 Feb 13 at 12:25 pm
An interesting analysis, but if this is all true, how did he get the job in the first place?
David Collard
21 Feb 13 at 1:28 pm
He was a necessary evil to beat Howard. After that he was expendable, and the only further thing needed was the justification.
Steve D
21 Feb 13 at 1:44 pm
It was Keating quoting Jack Lang.
It’s an interesting dilemma. Rudd is not dangerous if simply reinstated, but he will be very dangerous to the union controllers if reelected.
I think Brett is wrong. An electoral disaster will leave only the safest seats and who has those? Also, when they’ve been really trashed the money and help of the unions will be more important. It takes a really strong ALP govt to do something about the union preferment in the party rules.
Plus, the starting point for the recrimination will be that the mistaken appointment of Rudd to the job led to the ruination of Gillard through her advancement too early, plus Swan will rightly get a large serve of the blame.
Pedro
21 Feb 13 at 1:51 pm
A couple of thoughts:
- Rudd won’t be re-elected. The caucus doesn’t want him; the unions don’t want him; and, anyway, he would not survive infinite re-runs of the character references of his erstwhile ministerial colleagues during the campaign;
- There is no obvious alternative to Julia in sight – who wants the worst job in politics anyway, the leader of a depleted and demoralised federal opposition?
- Despite Howes’s typically bombastic public utterances, I suspect the AWU et al. probably will prevail on Guillard to withdraw and on Shorten to take it on, subject to certain assurances to each.I am assuming, of course, Shorten has an impregnable margin.
- Union retention of the career path from the working class to the parliamentary class is the real trier in this race.
Warwick
21 Feb 13 at 2:55 pm
Will Dear Krudd contest this election?
I reckon he might just pull out the day the writs are issued or the day after. There is no future for him, he has a decent retirement package, the unions will face a judicial enquiry regardless, it would severely fuck with the minds of those in the ALP and probably suck an extra percentage point away in the election result as a little parting gift
lastly I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody in the ALP party lent on him anyway and told him to eff off. Krudd sitting on the backbench for a few years getting heckled during question is probably not his idea of fun either.
Dan
21 Feb 13 at 3:04 pm
Jack Lang said to Paul Keating
“Sonny, in the race of life back self-interest.
It’s always a starter and it’s always trying.”
Thomas Esmond Knox
21 Feb 13 at 5:00 pm
Just watched the 7pm ABC news. Howes has attacked the anonymoust ” pricks” who have not backed Gillard. That establishes his credentials as a Gillard supporter, doesn’t it? Now he can help to organise a transisiton from Gillard to his colleague and mate, Shorten, and claim force majeure.
Samuel? What are you thinking?
Warwick
21 Feb 13 at 7:35 pm