tip off

Opposition leadership — taking one for the team, but not always fatal

History suggests whoever wins the Labor leadership is unlikely to become Prime Minister and not before the 2020s if they do.

Bill Shorten

History is strongly against whoever takes over the leadership of the federal ALP becoming prime minister this decade — but the new leader might get another chance in the 2020s.

Only three federal and state first-term opposition leaders have won office in Australia in the last 20 years after uninterrupted stints in the job, and two of those (Bob Carr and Mike Rann) needed two elections before winning (and, technically, Rann had replaced former premier Lynn Arnold, rather than leading from the election). Only Peter Beattie has managed the feat of leading his party from a change of government to victory in his first go, and he had the help of One Nation.

Most first-term leaders do manage to make it to the end of their term intact — the experience of Brendan Nelson, who didn’t even make it to the end of his term in his seat, is atypical.  But few make it to the end of their second terms as leaders: only Kim Beazley, Bob Carr, Jeff Kennett and Mike Rann managed that.

Given federal governments are virtually never one-term governments, that suggests Bill Shorten or Anthony Albanese has only a small chance of making it to the end of his second term as leader, and an even smaller chance of winning that election.

That’s not to say it’s permanently fatal to their chances of becoming prime minister. Several failed first-term leaders went on to have another go: Beazley (two-time loser, though he won the vote in 1998), Andrew Peacock (lost one, lost the leadership, returned and lost second time, though he won the vote in 1990), and Jeff Kennett lost twice, lost the leadership, then came back for a win. Dennis Napthine also did a Lazarus — indeed, it’s more common than you might think — but from the comfort of government.

A different question is whether the next Labor prime minister is even in Parliament. In 17 changes of government since 1992, five of the winners weren’t in Parliament when their party went into opposition; a further two were were first elected when they went into opposition.

All of which is to say, it probably doesn’t matter a great deal for the moment who gets the Labor leadership. What probably matters more is the process by which Labor selects its leader. If Bill Shorten is the only nominee, he’ll be targeted as the product of a factional deal. If there’s a genuine contest with, say, Anthony Albanese, Labor will get to put its newly democratised leadership process on display in a manner that will confer greater legitimacy on whoever wins and signal a definite change from the leadership circus that characterised Labor from the time of Simon Crean onwards.

Being first-term opposition leader is definitely taking one for the team — but in Labor’s case, it will be even better if two volunteer for it.

20
  • 1
    Ian McAuley
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    The conventional wisdom that it takes two terms for a government to be re-elected is well supported Bernard’s historical evidence.

    But each situation is unique. Labor lost office in spite of its economic competence and the popularity of those policies which distinguished it from the Coalition. The Coalition has built up huge expectations, and we face serious economic problems - our deficit on current account, incipient inflation, inadequate revenue for state governments’ labour-intensive services, worsening inequality, and perhaps even a housing boom collapse. Assured double terms belong to past times of more forgiving economic conditions.

    In my judgement in two years Labor will either have reformed substantially, and be well-positioned for office (particularly if Abbott is still PM), or, if it hasn’t reformed and has had a seat-warmer as leader, will be on the way to minor party status or oblivion. The two-term-to-reform option is no longer available.

  • 2
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Ahhh “The Shorten Principle”, what can you say about that?
    “He sure is”?

    What’s the difference between this parliament - assuming Shorten gets the OL gig - and Lord of the Rings?
    Lord of the Rings only had one Sméagol.

  • 3
    Mr Tank
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Oh Klewso you crack me up! Ian McAuley is right. I think it is well possible that the next leader of the Labor party will be the next Labor Prime Minister. This ain’t Kansas anymore. I’m now a proud member of the NZ Labour Party - let my ALP membership lapse when I jumped the ditch. The three way leadership contest now underway over here has been a great success - the base is energised (membership up 20 per cent and counting)and Labour Values and policy’s have dominated the media cycle for the whole time. Should this be a contested leadership Australian Labor will have a perfect platform from which to attack the first actions of this new Coalition government while reinforcing the message that the issues that condemned the last Labor Government are being resolved. It will allow the Labor party to rapidly reboot itself as an effective opposition and start to regain the trust of the electorate. Albo and Bill need to both put their hands up to make this happen. Plus, for that matter, a third candidate that while with no real chance of winning will demonstrate the depth of talent in the Labor team and bring a different policy focus to the mix. I’d recommend Tanya Pilbersek - it would create for her real momentum within the party and as Deputy Leader after the vote a much higher profile with the electorate. Any one in labor land listening?

  • 4
    Siege Golightly
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Why does it have to be between Labor and Liberal all the time? Is this not the perfect opportunity for someone new to come in and run on a campaign based on greater personal freedoms of all Australians? Instead we’ve had Labor and Liberal running on who can treat boat people more inhumanely, who is going to follow treaties and alliances with the UK and US more and whether or not the public service gets screwed.

    Dare I say maybe it’s time for someone to enter Australian politics in the middle of these two parties?

  • 5
    mikehilliard
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Abbott threw out the history book, he’ll make on term in office if he’s lucky.

  • 6
    CML
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Agree Bernard, at least two members should stand for the LOTO. It is the right time to try out the new system, and give the membership a say in all this.
    There seems to be a lot of opposition to Shorten on the blogs and in the media. IMHO Albo would be a better alternative in the current scenario. He would hopefully be able to unite the party and move forward. ‘Salt of the earth’ guy, as far as I can see.

  • 7
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Shorten is such a grate choice, that Limited News peddles his barrow.

  • 8
    beachcomber
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    Albanese would be a much better leader. He is a likeable guy and has broad support within the community and the party. His main problem is that if he takes the job, Shorten will be his Rudd, stalking him as he stalked Rudd and Gillard.

  • 9
    Steve777
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    Since the current party-political landscape crystallised in the early 1920s, there have been 10 changes of Federal government, so federal governments have lasted on average for just over 9 years. That is 3 (or 4) terms. The last one term Federal government was Scullin from 1929-31, so history is against whoever wins the Labor leadership in the next couple of weeks.

  • 10
    Edward James
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Those of us who follow michaelsmithnews.com understand Bill Shorten has baggage dating back to around the time of the alleged AWU fraud and the purchase of “that house” Sure Labor factions should make him leader of Labor unopposed, and we the peoples may grow strong in our perceptions that nothing has changed! Siege I like the idea that a third party may arise to fill the void created by Labor continuing down a path to self destruction. Edward James

  • 11
    Denis Goodwin
    Posted Wednesday, 11 September 2013 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    You can not always judge the future by the past. Both Howard and Gillard nearly lost after one term. If Albo gets up I would give him a good chance. Abbott has over promised a bit like Rudd.

  • 12
    Edward James
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    While awaiting moderation consider this reported quote.
    Bill Shorten a man more suited to be in the company of Brutus dropped into place as Party leader may well speed up the demise of the Labor party nationally.
    “I thought, ‘I want a pie. I don’t really want my boss to be disparaged.’ When I listened to her (Ms Huang) on radio today I though maybe I misunderstood. I rang her to apologise. We had a chuckle.”

    http://www.news.com.au/national-news/humble-pie-shorten-apologises-to-pie-shop-owner-over-gillard-blow-up/story-fndo4eg9-1226442272819

    Ha ha ha Bill you stabbed two of your “bosses” in the back?
    Edward James

  • 13
    Edward James
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    Klewso @ 7 catch up! The new disparaging name the masses may take up for Rupert Murdock’s old Limited News stable of papers could be “News Corpse”. Edward James

  • 14
    AR
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    Klewy - never forget what Smeagol became, the saviour, albeit unintentionally.

  • 15
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Edward you read one of my previous posts, just after the rechristening?
    “News Corpse. The gutted remains of what we are left with hanging out the front of Murdoch’s Limited News Shambles”?

  • 16
    Edward James
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Klewso. News Corpse is a great replacement put down. on a par with “Is that the truth or did you read it in the Telegraph?” I hope every member of the commentariat pick it up and uses News Corpse! Just as I hope everyone picks up on “the two parties not much preferred”. Edward James

  • 17
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    They’ve earned it. For the canted shit that gets passed off as “political commentary” in a Murdochracy.
    Their elitist attitude to opinion/news, their capacity to edit out alternate opinion and views, their abuse of their position, from their virtual monopoly control of the hard-copy medium, the way they get to edit news, to suit His agenda, as seen by most.

  • 18
    Salamander
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    The real question is, how long can the LNP con the populace on climate change? Once their bankruptcy on this issue becomes patent to a critical mass, the drover’s dog will emerge from its kennel and lead Labor to victory.

  • 19
    Serenatopia
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    @Siege — -unfortunately there ain’t much room for the genuine to run for office in this country!

  • 20
    Posted Thursday, 12 September 2013 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    SERENATOPIA: Of course, if you are a genuine footy hero, there’s nothing you can’t achieve.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...