Changing Horses
This morning the Australian Labor Party votes on whether they want the incumbent, Kim Beazley, or the challenger, Kevin Rudd, as the new leader of the party going into next year’s federal election. Kim’s had two shots at Howard already, but after being dumped in favor of Simon Crean, himself dumped for Mark Latham, who lost the last election against Howard, there’s been a lot of media talk about Labor’s chances in 2008, mostly negative, mostly based on Kim’s performance, and despite a growing trend in the polls showing Labor leading against the Coalition. So with a 6-point lead, why shake up the leadership?

There’s been a little bit of speculation that’s it’s a ruse, a way for Beazley to quash further leadership disputes and media nonsense, most of which has centered on Rudd replacing Beazley, or Gillard, for that matter, who is running as Rudd’s deputy. That makes a certain amount of sense. There are a substantial number of swing voters who’d vote Labor if they believed Kim was the leader the party needed, but who have bought into Howard’s old line about Kim’s lack of “ticker” for the job of PM. I don’t buy any of it.

It seems to me that this is a genuine challenge based on the perception of job performance. I think Beazley’s got the stamina and determination to be PM and that he’d do a good job, but I also think that Rudd, along with much of the media and a substantial part of the Labor faithful, see Kim’s performance as lacking. It’s true; I think he’s failed to stand up and capitalize on issues where Howard’s vulnerable, at least to the extent I’d prefer, but in some cases at all. It’s not like I’m watching Question Time, or that I have a good idea of the day-to-day operations of Parliament, and I have to factor in what I see as the media’s bias in favor of Iron John – the news tends to focus on Howard’s invulnerability and the mythos of his status as the most brilliant politician of the modern age. Or something. The opposition, particularly Beazley, just don’t get as much time on the air or in the papers, except for their missteps. It doesn’t matter about the war in Iraq, the incompetent performance and ludicrous cover-up over the AWB or any of the outright lies Howard’s used to divide the nation; he’s untouchable, his every word swallowed delightedly and regurgitated for the masses.

This is why Rudd’s got a chance, as much as why I don’t like his timing. Beazley’s vulnerable but the party’s strong. If the electorate prefers Howard as PM but also the ALP as government, then the ALP with a more popular leader ought to be able to topple the Liberals at last. Rudd’s gotten plenty of attention as a potential alternative, and now we’ll see if it comes about, but what the effect will be, now that the only story in the papers through to the election is going to be Labor’s leadership problems, is anyone’s guess.

This Just in: Rudd's in, pretty decisively, too.