‘A political leader must keep looking over his shoulder all the time to see if the boys are still there. If they aren’t still there, he’s no longer a political leader.’
Perhaps nothing better describes the extraordinary downfall of Kevin Rudd than American presidential adviser Bernard Baruch’s remarks in 1932. Extraordinary, because for three years from 2006 to late 2009, Australia’s prime minister was in the political stratosphere. And yet, today, Rudd was knifed in the most ruthless, swift and effective fashion. And the hit men? Factional warlords of the Australian union movement. The Opposition leader Tony Abbott reflected the views of many Australians when he told Parliament today: ‘A midnight knock on the door followed by a political execution is no way to treat a prime minister.’
Of course, Australian Labour party history is littered with examples of the boys either knifing their leader or setting party policy. In 1963, 36 unknown members of the federal conference of the
Labour party — otherwise known as the ’36 faceless men’ – famously were deciding the parliamentary party’s policy for or against US bases while the parliamentary leaders
were outside in the cold waiting for their orders from the meeting.
The problem here is that the antics of the boys who either knife their leaders or set party policy contradict the notion of government by a parliament elected by the public. Simply put, governing
decisions should not be determined by a tiny extra-parliamentary minority elected by another minority to direct and control the parliamentary representatives.
So why has it come to this? Why has the most popular prime minister in living memory declined so quickly in recent months that he became a sitting duck for the union boys to knock off.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in