Desperate times and crazy ideas |
It is a common mistake in analysing leadership challenges to search for a deeper logic - some cunning plan that when fully executed, will facilitate a magical turn-around.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Login or signup to continue reading
Experience teaches us that, more often than not, there is scant rigour behind most power-plays. Plenty of ambition and laudatory talk of change, but a well-calibrated blueprint of actions and results? Rarely.
Bob Hawke's last-minute raid on Bill Hayden's work-a-day leadership in 1983 might be an exception. There were solid empirical data to argue that the charismatic Hawke could turn an uncertain contest against Malcolm Fraser into a sure thing.
Having rolled Hayden on the day the election was called, Hawke relied heavily on Hayden's diligent work on policy development and positioning.
His plan was simple and effective, however harsh it was on Hayden who famously observed, "I am not convinced that the Labor Party would not win under my leadership. I think that a drover's dog could lead the Labor Party to victory".
Hayden's injury was real but there was no gainsaying the result. He became that rare thing in politics, a leader probably on track to success, who was nonetheless replaced at a minute to midnight.
More typically, these leadership convulsions originate in the miasmic despair of poor polling when any switch at all starts looking attractive. The name Mark Latham springs to mind here. There are others.
Foolish options can look sensible when the risk profile inverts so that doing nothing feels riskier than rolling the dice. Or, perish the thought, unifying behind the incumbent.
When Kevin Rudd and his supporters plotted their revenge on Julia Gillard through 2012-13, there was a sense that rehiring Rudd was both an act of contrition, and a solution to a looming........