Over its 122-year history, the Labor party has suffered three major internal cataclysms. In 1917, the issue of conscription saw leader Billy Hughes take many Labor members with him across to the Liberal party. It took years for Labor to recover.
In 1930, the depression saw Jack Lang leave the party, form his own, and wreak havoc with Labor support for a decade. In 1955, the issue of communism saw many Catholic members of the Labor party defect to the DLP. This kept Labor out of office for a generation.
The Gillard versus Rudd affair reached a preliminary climax on Monday. The 71-31 vote appears conclusive. But the word “preliminary” is necessary, as some fundamental issues are left hanging.
First, none of the previous internal disputes involved such venomous language and vitriolic attacks as the past week or so. The Gillard camp, especially, could only be described as using poisonous ferocity. The Rudd camp was also far from genteel.
Can these caucus members, who spent a week attempting to destroy the reputation, credibility and character of their colleagues, now re-unite and work together? If they do, then much of what was said during the fracas was hypocrisy. If they do not, then the Labor government is almost certainly doomed to ignominious defeat in 2013.
Second, the government and the party now has to decide just what it believes in, what it stands for, and what its ideology is. In simple terms, what content is there left in the historic “light on the hill”? Before and during the fracas, Julia Gillard seemed to depend on vacuous mantras: “getting the job done”; “this is the Australian way, we follow it because we are us”; “Labor says yes to Australia’s future”.
During the depths of the internecine battle, Kevin Rudd was accused of not holding “Labor values”. Is anyone in the Labor party able to provide a clear description of what these are? Some of the Labor caucus were members of the 2007-10 Rudd ministry. In the past few days they have reviled him and his style. Yet they worked with him until the 2010 coup.
Third, during the battle over leadership, Julia Gillard seemed to ignore the flat-lined polls for the last year. In fact, the few days of passionate debate appeared as two ships passing: Gillard with a “crew” of most of the cabinet and caucus arguing that it was not a matter of polls, but of “getting the job done”; Rudd with a “crew” of a majority of Australian voters clearly favouring him.
During the crisis, Julia Gillard appealed to the Labor caucus, and secured a solid vote of support. Kevin Rudd appealed on the basis that he had a clear lead among the voters, and had a better chance of winning the next election. Will Julia Gillard now be able to convince the voters that their opinions matter?
Fourth, Kevin Rudd promised no second challenge if he lost. He will join the back bench. But that does not mean that there will not be another leadership change. Unless the polls shift decisively in favour of Labor in the next few months, at least to the point of having a chance to win, then there will be a solid collection of very nervous Labor backbenchers looking for a leader who can bring support.
My non-scientific poll of a random sample of voters brought a unanimous response: a plague on the whole lot of them. The fracas was damaging for Labor, but also apparently for the whole political process. All politicians need now to focus on the best policies for Australia and Australians, not on themselves.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it
An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…
Our special forces don’t always need special treatment
We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…
A good holiday is about unrest, not rest
Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented