Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 296 other subscribers-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Wlodzimierz Kuczynski on Vamvakaris: The flood
- opoudjis on Which Indian states are well known in other countries?
- Test Test on Which Indian states are well known in other countries?
- opoudjis on Karamanlis and their food
- Stazybo Horn on Karamanlis and their food
Archives
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- February 2023
- June 2022
- November 2021
- October 2021
- March 2019
- February 2019
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- July 2008
- June 2008
- November 2006
- October 2006
Categories
Meta
Why are the leaders of the Australian political parties so prone to being toppled?
All the answers given here have been excellent. I particularly liked Kai Neagle’s.
Several factors have contributed to Australia recently turning into postwar Italy, and most of them have already been pointed out.
- Labor has always been factionalised. The Liberals have become much more factionalised recently, with the resurgence of the reactionary right.
- Both parties have moved to The Mushy Centre. As a result, there is not a lot of sunlight between them, and there is pressure on them from their extremes: from the Greens, and from One Nation and other right wing populists.
- This has made the parties much more managerial than ideological, and accordingly much more prone to panic at poll results rather than sticking it out. If you don’t have an ideology, the only reason you are in power is to stay in power.
- Labor as a movement has suffered much more from the Twilight of the Ideologies, the demise of socialism, and the Hawke-Keating neoliberal reforms. So the cracks were always going to show there first.
- Labor was also structurally more prone to do this kind of thing, to begin with.
- Pundits at the time talked of federal Labor contracting Sussex Street disease—referring to NSW Labor, which has always been much more ruthless.
- The unionist Paul Howes, who was instrumental in toppling Rudd for Gillard, was derided as one of Labor’s faceless men. The insult is 50 years old: it comes from Menzies. The only difference with Howes is that he didn’t stay faceless: he gave TV time to anyone who would ask.
Many of these factors are shared throughout the Western world, and other answers have already mentioned them. They don’t explain why Australia has remained unstable. Others have brought up procedural reasons, which are beyond my expertise. I’ll offer a simpler reason.
Precedent.
Yes, the party leader is leader only by the grace of the party room. But toppling a sitting prime minister used to be Unthinkable. And the country was shell shocked when Rudd was toppled. I was in Melbourne’s Fed Square when it happened, and I remember dozens of us staring mouths agape at the TV screens.
Once it happened, the unthinkable became thinkable. And eventually, expected.
Leave a Reply