He has to be the leader. He's so safe you could leave your girlfriend or your kelpie with him.Or your Kelpie. Glad he won't do to Kelpies what he also won't do to girlfriends.
Meanwhile Beazley potters on. There's a fire in that belly I'm sure, but whether it fires over policy or just the seat inhabited by Johnny is another matter. How many chances do you get before you accept that maybe you're not leadership material. Maybe you don't even believe in anything worth fighting for.
I started reading the Latham diatribe again the other day, got about 3 pages further in and retired it again. Why are there so many people in my party with such strong beliefs that accord so precisely with the dry wing of the Liberal party? People who probably sit to the right of Amanda Vandstone or Petro Georgiou?
I would like to see a Rudd-Gillard team sweep in now, but my fear is that they wouldn't make enough headway before the next election, lose, and get dumped prematurely by the party in its hand-wringing uncertainty as people muttered about what a mistake it was to ditch Beazley.
If the party has little chance of winning next time, wouldn't that be a good opportunity to run a few strong policies up the flag, road test them, see where the public might actually tolerate or even warm to something progressive? Sometimes we are so conservative that I wonder if Labor winning with Beazley and the roosters at the helm would be an improvement at all...