mgpcpastor's blog

So, the change in the Prime Ministership of Australia was breath-taking for two reasons:
A Prime Minister who brought his party to office after twelve years of opposition, and who had enjoyed unprecedented levels of popularity during the early part of his term, was dumped before being able to contest re-election.
The replacement as imcumbent Prime Minister was, for the first time, a woman.

Some observations:
Being factionally unaligned in Labor politics is hard work. All you have going for you is popularity and holding office, and if either of those come under serious threat you won’t be around long.
Australian politics has entered a very uncertain new phase. Time was when a government would only replace an incumbent leader when they’d run out of ideas, energy, money and knew that defeat was only a matter of time. The ruthless decisiveness of this decision demonstrates that political leaders can’t just gain government, produce policy outcomes and deal with their opposition: they have to be publicly popular the whole time while doing it. I believed that when the election was called Rudd and the record of his first term would have seen him returned to office as the electorate was actually faced with a decision about who should govern the country instead of being asked about whether they were feeling happy with the situation. The fact we have had three leaders of the opposition during this parliamentary term would indicate that both sides of politics will embrace this paradigm. The sad and humiliating end of the Howard Prime Ministership will mean that no party will ever wait too long to replace a leader again.
Kevin Rudd can take some heart. His place in the Labor pantheon is assured because he defeated John Howard. Such is the antipathy with which Howard and his government is regarded by Labor that Rudd will always be a hero for that. His term in office having been cut short and not being subject to an election has no definitive public judgement against it. The question for historians will be one of ‘what if’, not one of ‘we know’.
There has been some note made of Julia Gillard’s gender.
Putting together her account of the lead up to this changeover, Gillard has for some time been considering what she describes as the government losing its way. Its decline in the polls has really only been noticable over the last six months or so, so presumably that is the time frame to which she refers. In addition, as a loyal deputy she has not canvassed the issue of changing leadership with the other members of the party until some key power-brokers came to her and indicated the leadership was hers for the taking. This took place as recently as yesterday. There is no indication that this was anything but their first approach. If Gillard had declined I think it is safe to say no other would have been approached. She was the natural and only credible alternative leader.
Instead, when presented with the opportunity she grasped it without sentiment and with such clinical precision that even now Kevin Rudd would hardly know what hit him.
Anyone who thinks anything other than the most formidable political will in Australia, male or female, is our Prime Minister is kidding themselves. Julia Gillard makes two of the more formidable politcal figures of the past thirty years look like amatuers. Paul Keating took six months and two attempts to dislodge the weakening Bob Hawke. Peter Costello never managed an attempt at John Howard in twelve years. Gillard did the job on Rudd in less than twenty-four hours.
Gillard is also the most left-wing leader we have had, at least in the modern age. What that will mean is yet to be seen. Rudd’s social conservatism and Christian background were not appreciated by all in the Labor Party. There will be many in the movement who will celebrate his fall, not because they feared Labor losing goverment, but because of their dismay at what Rudd had not done to further their agenda. Those supportive of school chaplaincy who were buoyed by Rudd’s supportive words of last Monday night should be very concerned.
Something has also been made of the notion that the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will be less effective when having to oppose a woman. I think he will have to measure every word carefully, and not give in quite so much to throw away quips about the incumbent Prime Minister. Oddly enough there will be a unique double standard where Gillard’s gender will not be permitted to be a factor in any negative evaluation of her, but treating her with exactly the same degree of agression that would be directed toward a male politician will be attacked. I think the change in Prime Minister will actually mitigate the perception that women have a hard time supporting Abbott. My observation is that when it comes to women in authority those who generally judge them most harshly are other women. Hillary Clinton found little empathy from women with her candidature for the US presidency. Sarah Palin’s was also criticised generally by women. Maybe this will be less so with Australian women or with younger women. It will be interesting to see. All I’m saying is that I don’t think the change automatically worsens Abbott’s position and I wouldn’t be surprised if it improved while Gillard’s standing among men and those who support take no prisoner leaders will increase.

Anyway, those are some reflections on a tumultuous day in Australian politics.