On the weekend a cruise missile was fired from Perth at the Australian Labor Party offices in Canberra. The owner of the missile, Kim Beazley declared that he was challenging the leadership of Simon Crean. He denied firing the missile despite all evidence to the bloody obvious!
There is no doubt that Crean has failed to mobilise support for the ALP despite recent opportunities that could have given him an advantage. Included in this was the anti-war movement that successfully mobilised before the invasion of Iraq began. Australian federal politics has a version of a Baath Party torture machine called the NEWSPOLL that registers voter support for Parties several times a month. At each successive poll Crean has simply failed to even maintain his support.
I agree with Lindsey Tanner, who argues that the political failure of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party rests with the leadership team more than it does with the leader. The federal party leadership seems incapable of developing a policy strategy that interests the public. Crean’s failure is the failure of shadow cabinet and the Caucus.
Never the less, the leader is not entirely absolved. I don’t think that Crean is able to project himself into the political debate. Beazley is. His ‘presence’ and ‘style’ make up for the conservatism of his politics. Unfortunately Crean does not have these qualities, which means that the conservatism of his politics is the only thing left. Unfortunately, the masses don’t find this softer version of liberal conservatism very appealing.
If one must chose between Crean and Beazley, then I would support the later. Why? Because this is an argument about ‘style’ not ‘substance’. Beazley is capable of projecting something more than the nothingness of his social conservatism. For this reason he will at least lessen the defeat Labor is probably going to suffer in the next election.
Yes, style matters. Don’t let some boring old left wing fart tell you anything different! You know, the master of ‘style’ politics is the left. Think of that wonderful iconic photograph of Che Guevara. The far left can justifiably make the claim that at least its style is combined with substance (the right can too). Style matters. Look at the photograph of social protest in the 1960’s and 1970’s and tell me that style does not matter.
Many years ago I saw Beazley in a photograph. It was a shot that favoured his stature. In his hand he held a hat that looked like it was shaped in a classic Australian style. He immediately reminded me of iconic Labor from the 1940’s. There was a hint of Curtin and Chifley. I thought that it was this imagery that Beazley is trying to project as a political leader.
Again, let me restate that I have no illusions about Beazley’s programmatic agenda. I only have in mind a damage limitation exercise. If there is to be progress in politics it is likely to come as a result of Labor developing a common programmatic agenda with conservationists (the Greens) and political ‘small l’ liberals (the democrats), rather than directly from shadow cabinet and caucus.
1:35:46 PM 
|
