A friend and fellow ex-Democrat, one with a few more years experience than I, predicted a week ago that Bartlett would be ushered aside to allow Lyn Allison to take the reins of parliamentary leader. That prediction was not a hard one to make, but the media have failed to pick up on the story behind the shuffle and what the results actually mean. Instead the media have mistakenly accepted that, as Allison is unopposed, she will be the new leader. There may yet be a surprise from the December ballot.
With most political parties, a candidate who is unopposed automatically takes up the nominated position. However, the Democrats are not your average party and democracy has a funny way of turning the tide.
In December the proposed leadership team of Allison and Bartlett must still face the membership in a yay/nay ballot. The ballot is not a contestable choice, but it is a referendum of the members to approve or disapprove. It is, therefore, possible that the membership could provide a majority vote against either or both of these candidates for their nominated positions. This would leave the party without one or both positions filled and hopefully cause a major re-think in how they have come to offend the membership.
When Meg Lees faced such a ballot (before the successful challenge by Stott Despoja) around 30% of members voted against her, even though there was no alternative candidate. This was the largest no vote issued against an unopposed candidate for the leadership position in the history of the Democrats. It was a strong signal that Lees was on the nose with members for her role in the GST. It was also a clear signal that had Stott Despoja been a challenger then, she may have won.
Andrew Murray is a little smarter than Lees - a lot smarter in fact! Which is why he has not directly challenged the leadership or sought to nominate at subsequent ballots. Murray knows he would face a similar backlash. That is why his work has been in the background.
Cherry was his slave issuing the 10 point "knives-in-the-back" plan that forced out Natasha. Allison was the pivotal 4th edge to the razor gang that backed the ultimatum. Eachway Ridgeway was Murray's "unbiased" nominee to take over the leadership. On that point Murray failed and the National Executive installed interim leader, Brian Greig, before Bartlett got the guernsey in a deal that saw Allison pitched as deputy.
For exactly the same reason outlined above, Murray chose not to nominate for preselection in 2003 for a double dissolution (DD) ticket. He didn't want to face the membership and risk a backlash. If a DD had been called, Andrew Murray would not have been on the ticket and would have lost his seat (unless his mates found a way to rerun or override the preselection ballot).
Murray was taking a gamble. He took the chance that there would not be a DD, rather than risk his credibility and ego at the hands of the membership, whom he viewed as a "mob". His punt paid off and his position remained secure.
So, how will Bartlett and Allison fare when they put their necks on the chopping block in December. Allison's complicitness in the decay of the Victorian Division is not well known in the other states, especially to the numerous newbie members. Many of the wiser members have departed the Dems long ago, so there are few left to pass on words of caution to potential voters.
My advice to current members ... if you are the least bit unhappy with either candidate, vote NO! Don't be led into thinking the Party can't fare well without a leader ... it has done for a couple of years now, a few more won't hurt. Besides ... who needs a parliamentary leader, when there is no parliamentary party after June 30?!
[+/-] show/hide this post
No comments:
Post a Comment