Australian political WI

MrHola

Banned
Inspired by BlackMage's TL :).

Jim Cairns was defeated by one vote for the Labour leadership in 1968. That would be a good POD. Jim was not as charismatic as Gough Whitlam but was still popular. He was the head of the largest anti-Vietnam rally in Australia. He still becomes PM in 1972 because the Libs after 23 years were in self destruct mode. They were pro war and pro conscription. They were just boring grey uninspiring jerks. Not very much changes. Health, education and Social Security changes are still made. The loans affair still happens. Jim does not turn over ministers as fast as Gough, I assume. When the Marosi affair happens, Bill Hayden challenges Jim for the leadership and wins in late 1975.

Plausible? What happens next to Australia if no Gough Whitlam?
 
A very interesting POD and one that I have often though about myself. It has been mentioned in some other ATL, but the idea has usually been dismissed as unrealistic. While I think this is an exaggeration it is still a valid point.

One of the things that made the ALP electable in 1972 was the reforms Whitlam put through from the late 1960's onwards. Coming from the Victorian Left would Cairns be able to do this? I think he would definitely be less likely to than Whitlam. For instanc would have get the ALP behind state aid for private school like Whitlam did?

Also there is the fact that Cairns was considered too radical by much of the public. Not in the way that he later was with the alternative lifestyles, etc, etc, but at that time due to his heavilly socialist economic ideology. I find it hard to think that he would have got quite as much of the middle class to vote for him as Whitlam did. I certainly don't think Cairns will appeal to 'small l' liberals as much as Whitlam did.

Jim Cairns does sort of remind me a little bit of an Australia George McGovern or Tony Benn, someone who many believe was well-intentioned, but would always been deemed to radical by most voters.
 
This is something I've often wondered myself. It wasn't by 'one vote', though, but it was closer than expected. The thing is, Gough Whitlam influenced the Liberal leadership battles; one of the reasons Gorton imploded was because Whitlam was routinely beating him into the House floor like a tent peg. If you choose someone less ostentatious, less sure of himself, to be the Labor leader, Gorton could look much better.

Cairns was, in fact, what Whitlam is (erroneously) attributed to be: a visionary, uncompromising, idealistic to the point of naive, highly intellectual leader. (Not to say Whitlam wasn't those things, but to a much lesser degree). I don't think McMahon could ever win an election, anywhere, ever, so Cairns slides into power by default. His government would be more radical even than Gough's. But his personal flaws were also far greater. Marosi wouldn't necessarily have happened; after all, there are significant butterflies involved. But Cairns' absolute devotion to his particular ideology would have been anathema to government. He would have achieved a lot of good things, but when the economy collapsed (as it would have regardless of who was in office) his government would have followed, and the ensuing defeat would have made 1975 look like 1943.

Whitlam's government was very much shaped by Whitlam. The emphasis on urban development, on creating opportunities for the suburban middle class, and on the arts were all manifestations of his own ideology. Cairns, much more concerned with economic redistribution, pacifism and social injustice, would have been a very different leader; less concerned with the 'sewer socialism' achievements that are now considered Whitlam's proudest legacy and more involved in larger, abstract projects to reshape Australian society.

We would have lived in interesting times.
 
FWIW, Cairns in one of his last interviews said he'd come to the conclusion that he could never have held the leadership for more than a year.

Apparently sinister 'reactionary' forces would have moved against him, by which he no doubt meant Whitlam would've been back in '69 _or_ perhaps Frank Crean would have emerged as a no-frills consensus leader.
 
My grandpa knew both whitlam and Cairns rather well. From his story i really dont think Cairns had the stone to be Pm. so we get another decade of getting but fucked by the liberals
 
Top