Why are leaders still important in modern day politics?

How are leadership changes achieved?

Leadership changes can be achieved by several different routes.

One, and the easiest, is the current leader knows their time is up, resigns and bows out gracefully. This has the advantage of reducing internal party friction, is quick and avoids adverse media speculation – there might be some but generally it is not an ongoing saga. Menzies to Holt occurred in this way as did, as mentioned, the Downer to Howard change. One issue, though, there must be a heir apparent to convince the incumbent to stand aside. One of the current problems with the federal Liberal Party unlike the 1990s when there was the Howard vs Peacock competition, is that there has not been for some time just who might replace Ley? Also, there has been no certainty a change would make things better.

Second, a leadership change can be achieved by a sudden, unexpected coup with the rebels carefully and quietly cultivating support and choosing through whatever processes available, to bring on a spill. Andrew Peacock’s move against Howard in 1989 had all these elements. Turnbull’s challenge to Abbott in 2015 was also sudden leaving Abbott little time to respond. So too, had several of the recent aforementioned changes in NSW, SA, and Victoria.

Third, there is the leadership change by attrition – it is slow and increasingly public. Consequently, it undermines the incumbent leader’s opinion polling rating and so becomes self-fulfilling. The leader’s rating is declining so this testifies, according to the plotters, to the need for a new leader! Sometimes such leaders can end their misery by resigning or if willing to fight on. by bringing on their own “spill” by calling as special meeting and declaring all positions vacant. This can catch the plotters off guard. Or, as Turnbull did in 2018, the leader can evoke all the party room rules to slow down the plotters and in effect bring them into the open. Such leaders might still lose, as Turnbull did, but it can create a space where party members might consider who the replacement should be and to allow time for negotiation among the different “factions”. Hence, in 2018, instead of the original evoker of the crisis, Dutton, becoming leader, Morrison emerged as the eventual victor because of support from previous Turnbull adherents.

The current Liberal Party turmoil concerning Sussan Ley is certainly of this long burn, attrition variety. Little wonder the poor Liberal Party polling. Such long term leadership challenges distracts the party from doing what an opposition should – criticise the government and be the government in waiting. Ley has been subject to relentless attack. It has been so prolonged because, as noted, it has not been clear just who might replace Ley. The alternative power bloc in the party – the so called “conservatives” – have been split between Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie, and neither evoke any confidence about whether the party’s prospects would improve in the immediate future.

It is only now that Taylor has emerged as the winner but he might ponder whether in the painful journey to finally mount the challenge, the Liberal Party has been so damaged that any change in leadership will not make any difference to the Liberals’ prospects or even its very survival. Remember, Albanese can call an election anytime he wants.