Coup d'Etat in Australia?

[August1991]

Kevin Rudd's spokeswoman will not confirm whether the Prime Minister is standing in this morning's Labor leadership spill.

Labor caucus is meeting for a crucial election year vote, as Julia Gillard challengesfor the leadership and strives to become Australia's first female prime minister.

The situation came to a head last night after senior factional powerbrokers from the right told Ms Gillard she had enough support to take the leadership.

Those who wanted to topple Mr Rudd were convinced he was too unpopular to take the party to victory against Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The powerful Australian Workers Union and Health Services Union also quickly swung their support behind Ms Gillard as Mr Rudd's support base collapsed.

ABC

How do they do this? I can think of several parties in Canada that would like to have a similar procedure available.

[kimmy]

ABC

How do they do this? I can think of several parties in Canada that would like to have a similar procedure available.

Your link has been updated and now reads...

Julia Gillard has been elected unopposed to the Labor leadership, seizing power in a bloodless Parliament House coup after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd decided not to contest this morning's leadership ballot.

It sounds as if the party caucus has the power to hold a leadership review if it wishes, and to vote on a new leader as well. In this instance, Rudd decided to spare himself the embarrassment of being turfed in a leadership ballot and resigned; Ms Gillard became leader by acclamation.

-k

[Borg]

Just part of the political process of this country.

If it had been a 'Stan country or a minor african country it would have involved blood and guts and cries for UN intervention.

Borg

[myata]

Also may be a part of more open political culture. Here we like our parties to swipe all such things under the rug pretending nicety and unity till at all possible..leaving parties few options to adjust their leadership and course as they go.

Remember also that in Australia there's a proportionally elected Senate. Maybe the people are just generally more accepting of reality and change in their politics?

[Borg]

Maybe the people are just generally more accepting of reality and change in their politics?

Or they just do not give a shit anymore.

Borg

[myata]

Well unlike us here they do, i.e. something actually happens in their political reality. Wake me up at the next Lib or CPC convention, till then we can all safely go to sleep, politically speaking. And even then...who knows what (i.e anything?) we'll get from a due change of face?

[August1991]

Also may be a part of more open political culture. Here we like our parties to swipe all such things under the rug pretending nicety and unity till at all possible..leaving parties few options to adjust their leadership and course as they go.

I don't know if openness has anything to do with it.

This is how the British Conservatives got rid of Margaret Thatcher in 1990 since the caucus chooses the leader.

I think that makes sense. The sitting members are the ones most directly dependent on the leader for their political success. In practical terms, a party leader must keep at all costs the trust and support of the caucus. (Even in the US, a sitting president must rely on a partisan support in Congress. Nixon was ultimately forced to resign when he lost this partisan support.)

In Canada, we complicate things when we make party leadership a question of party delegates or broad party membership. I think that this is an attempt to join American populist democracy with our parliamentary system. It doesn't really work.

----

I don't follow Australian politics closely and I was hoping someone here (Tawasakm, please pick up the red courtesy phone in the lobby) could give us a MLF summary. From what I can gather, the ALP is low in the polls and Rudd has flip-flopped with even greater intellectual nuance than Ignatieff would have. Another tack is that unions want a more pliable leader.

The Liberal Democrats may form a government after the next election. Dunno.

Edited June 24, 2010 by August1991

[g_bambino]

In Canada, we complicate things when we make party leadership a question of party delegates or broad party membership. I think that this is an attempt to join American populist democracy with our parliamentary system. It doesn't really work.

This is one of those rare moments where we agree on something: You're exactly right in the analysis and the conclusion. The path to "presidentialising" the prime minister in Canada was made clear by shifting the selection of political party leaders from the caucus to the wider party membership, rendering MPs powerless and pointless in the task of holding their leader to account for his actions. This, especially when a party has a majority, greatly reduces the ability of the Commons to keep the prime minister in check, weakening one of the very core tenets of our system: responsible government.

I once read a letter to the editor from an individual who'd worked with Pearson on creating new methods for choosing the leader of the Liberal party, with the result being the process we know now. Seeing the consequences of those actions, he expressed regret for what had been done and said we should return to the way it was before. I agree, but can't believe any politician would willingly impose on himself restrictions on his ability to wield power.

[Remiel]

This is one of those rare moments where we agree on something: You're exactly right in the analysis and the conclusion. The path to "presidentialising" the prime minister in Canada was made clear by shifting the selection of political party leaders from the caucus to the wider party membership, rendering MPs powerless and pointless in the task of holding their leader to account for his actions. This, especially when a party has a majority, greatly reduces the ability of the Commons to keep the prime minister in check, weakening one of the very core tenets of our system: responsible government.

While I can see the relationship here, I am not sure I would think it appropriate to respond by switching back to MP run leadership. If I recall correctly, the influence of the average party member may be much less now than it ever was before, and without this last bastion of influence, they would be rendered pawns in a truly elite driven system. I do not think that is particularly desirable either. Do you think it is fine for different parties to have different leadership decisionmaking structures, or would it be better if they were all roughly the same? It occurs to me, if leadership was MP run in all parties, that would mean that any small party with only one or two MPs would effectively be beholden to those two people unless they went made yet another party, which would probably be suicidal. In any case, if there is a possible fix for this, I do not think it will lie in simplying undoing previous changes; a reordering should likely be much more comprehensive.

[Tawasakm]

I don't follow Australian politics closely and I was hoping someone here (Tawasakm, please pick up the red courtesy phone in the lobby) could give us a MLF summary. From what I can gather, the ALP is low in the polls and Rudd has flip-flopped with even greater intellectual nuance than Ignatieff would have. Another tack is that unions want a more pliable leader.

The Liberal Democrats may form a government after the next election. Dunno.

Basically there are three key issues that were killing Kevin Rudd. 1) Climate change. He was a very strong proponent of the necessity of an emissions trading scheme. After failing to push it through parlianent he gave up. It is worth noting the former Liberal leader lost his position in large part over the fact he wanted to work with the government to create an emmisions trading scheme. He saw a failure to do so as resulting in a double dissolution election trigger which his party would lose badly. He was replaced by a leader who was unwilling to deal on ETS. Rudd subsequently backed down on it rather than force the double dissolution. 2) Asylum seekers. Many Australians are getting hysterical over illegal immigrants arriving by boat and think the government should be alot tougher on it. Personally I don't see what the fuss is about but it is a major issue. 3) He tried to push through a mining super profits tax. The resources sector has been making tonnes of money and the government wanted more for its revenue. However his approach was poorly though out, appeared to many to be dictatorial and also appeared to risk jobs and future investment. This may or may not be true but the mining sector can afford alot of ads. Strangely enough on this issue he didn't back down and seek a compromise. He lost everyones confidence by abandoning an issue people wanted him to fight for then fought for an issue people wanted him to compromise on.

On a broader note his party regarded him as too dictatorial. He thought he could take on the factions and remove their influence. In the end when he appeared untenable the factions removed him with ease. Julia Gillard is now Australia's first Welsh born, red headed female prime minister.

Theres a condensed reply for you August

Edited June 28, 2010 by Tawasakm

[Tawasakm]

Also the Liberal and Democrat Parties will form a coalition when hell freezes over. The Democrats are a spent force as it is. The Liberals form coalition with the National party.

[kimmy]

Thanks for your thoughts, Tawasakm.

It's nice being at a forum that has people with such a diverse range of experience and expertise.

-k

[August1991]

On a broader note his party regarded him as too dictatorial. He thought he could take on the factions and remove their influence. In the end when he appeared untenable the factions removed him with ease. Julia Gillard is now Australia's first Welsh born, red headed female prime minister.

Theres a condensed reply for you August

"Too dictatorial", you have my attention.

Your other points strike me as an ex-wife explaining a divorce by saying that "he didn't wash the dishes, take out the garbage... "

From what I know, Kevin Rudd was a sophisticated, man of the world, Mandarin-speaking, modern Australian. He kind of sounds like Ignatieff. Too dictatorial, he sounds like Harper.

Sorry for drawing any parallels but I think the democratic world (eg Canada) is fascinated how a civilized society can change its sitting leader so quickly. To my knowledge, it has never happened in Canada at the federal or provincial level.

It's nice being at a forum that has people with such a diverse range of experience and expertise.

-k

Keep us informed. We're curious.

[August1991]

Julia Gillard is now Australia's first Welsh born, red headed female prime minister.

Theres a condensed reply for you August

Hmmm... Nah.