Mainly on Labor's leadership vacuum

Time to comment on the Labor leadership woes.

Over at Crikey.com they have an interesting internet poll result on preferred leaders for both the Coalition and the Labor Party. There are many things to note here:

1. Look at how big the readership of Crikey.com appears to be skewed to the Left generally. Looks like a margin of 3 to 1 would vote Labor or Green over the Coalition. This surely this can't represent the Crikey readership overall, can it?

2. On the conservative side, the big surprise is the strong showing of Malcolm Turnbull as alternative leader (well over the likes of Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer) and on a par with Peter Costello. Why is Turnbull so popular with intended Labor and Green voters? Does this indicate that the poll means nothing much at all?

3. On the Labor side, Julia Gillard wins as preferred leader. For Labor voters, she is miles ahead of the rest; for conservative voters, it seems equally split between her and Kevin Rudd.

4. Maybe Lindsay Tanner is not completely out of the race too. I must admit, he comes across as quite likeable and sincere, and I think more than one conservative commentator thinks well of him too.

As for my opinion of the other Labor contenders:

a. Kim Beazley: No doubt he is basically a nice guy. Several things about him as a person appeal to me: he's Christian; had a divorce but one in which he remained on good terms with his ex (contrast Latham); as right wing as they come on defence and (I think) foreign affairs; Phillip Adams hates him. It would be no disaster if he were PM. But his basic problem is that he all too often has to puff himself up into outrage in a manner which strikes as insincere. As everyone knows, he's still too verbose, which also gives the impression of possible indecisiveness. It's doubtful he can manage the factional issues. If he suffers a repeat of his recent serious illness, it would at least give him an excuse to exit with no loss of face.

b. Kevin Rudd: again, he is a relatively rare thing in that he is a serious Christian in the Parliamentary Labor Party. (I don't want to give the impression that religious belief is the most important thing I consider, but as a general rule I like some type of it in a political leader. ) Again, seems likeable as a person; the rapport he and Joe Hockey share on their segments on breakfast TV seems genuine. But - seems too smart for his own good. Maybe knows how to win arguments on an intellectual level, but not an emotional one. Cannot imagine him being an effective or overly popular leader within the party. Also gives the impression of having personal interests in too narrow a field.

c. Julia Gillard: current popularity seems mainly based on novelty factor (as was Latham's). Christopher Pearson's article in the Australian this weekend was a bit cruel in parts, but makes the basic valid point that she has been seen as too far to the right on immigration, and too far to the left on health. Does anyone know where she stands on foreign affairs and defence issues? Who knows where future policies under her leadership would end up. On a personal level, seems too opportunistic, giving the impression of being there more for personal advancement than for social concerns. (A problem shared by the majority of Labor parliamentarians today, given their backgrounds.)

Apparently decided at 18 that she was not going to have children. I have a personal bias on this that is difficult to justify when pressed, but as a rule I do not entirely trust people who have made that sort of decision at a young age, unless of course it is for health or genetic reasons. I think most people over 30 with children might share that suspicion. She (or more correctly, her mother) should never mention it again. You can read her Australian Story transcript and make your own mind up about this.

I predict she will never be Prime Minister. More likely some sort of meltdown.