This may come as a surprise, but if you’ve been banging your head against a brick wall for six* years and your head hurts, it’s almost certainly not because you haven’t been doing it hard enough. If you pick Shorten as the next Labor leader (or Albanese, or Bowen, or Swan, or Burke…) you might as well hang out a sign saying “we are useless and we will never change.”

You’ve had a bit of a loss. As unpleasant as that might me, it’s also a rare opportunity to try something new, see how it goes. Pick a leader who represents generational change, give them the authority to reform the party, and craft a new story about who you are and what you stand for. Shorten is up to his neck in the leadership dramas of the last few years, and no-one will take you seriously with him at the helm.

There’s plenty of alternatives. Plibersek would be brilliant, then there’s Dreyfus, Butler and Clare, although the last two don’t have Cabinet experience. Any of them would come to the leadership with (relatively) clean hands.

Get your shit together, Labor. Your primary vote is so low now it consists almost entirely of people who are so rusted-on they wouldn’t vote for another party if their lives depended on it. Stop bashing the Greens and focus on your real enemy. Find a leader who will reconnect with the base, emphasise your considerable strengths, and break away from the back-room squabbles of the past.

In other words, not fucking Shorten.

* actually, 17 years

The blogosphere is all a-titter at the thought of a contest for The Ultimate Prize of Australian politics (OK, technically the Prime Ministership, not the leadership of the ALP, is The Ultimate Prize, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here). Nic White at The 52nd State has a useful round-up of who’s backing who among the cream of the Australian bloggerati.

I’m a bit saddened that no-one seems to be thinking very creatively about the possibilities: White’s tally board has Gillard on 6, Beazley 5, Rudd 3. The only person outside this triumvirate of true believers to get a guernsey is WA Senator Chris Evans (who?). It’s hardly a Melbourne Cup field, so I decided I’d cast my eye over a few of the ALP’s less likely leadership contenders.

Warren Snowdon. Member for Lingiari (NT). Faction: Left.
Australia has never had a PM from the Northern Territory, and the last PM we had who looked so hot in a bushy moustache was, oh, Andrew Fisher. So it’s pretty clear that the time is right for this 54-year-old former teacher and policy adviser to make his place in history. Snowdon is an accomplished media performer, specialising in the “sitting behind the leader during question time so your mug gets on TV” manouevre.
Possible selling point: Has lived in both Canberra and the NT, so he knows Australia well.
Greatest asset: Looks marginally less ridiculous than Howard in a hat.
Odds: 10,000:1.

Tanya Plibersek. Member for Sydney (NSW). Faction: Left.
Now here’s a real contender. A former communications student at UTS (just like me!) and a darling of the gay community (just like me!), Tanya would be the first Prime Minister to ride on the lead float at Mardi Gras. Plibersek was one of the few ALP figures to publicly oppose the party’s capitulation on the anti-gay-marriage legislation.
Possible selling point: Core election promise to bring Kylie back to Mardi Gras.
Greatest asset: The looks of Natasha Stott-Despoja and the brains of Barry Jones.
Odds: 250:1.

Nicola Roxon. Member for Gellibrand (VIC). Faction: Right.
A rising Labor star with an impeccable pedigree (lawyer, former High Court Judge’s associate, former union organiser), Nikki Roxon has something no-one else in this list has: a faction with the power to deliver something more useful than a late-night kneecapping. Elevated to the shadow attorney-general’s portfolio by Simon Crean, Roxon was the strategic mastermind who delivered the ALP’s masterplan to support the government in outlawing gay marriage, and was presumably instrumental in the inspired Victorian preference swap with Family First, thus delivering a swag of conservative Christian votes and a landslide vistory to Mark Lath– oh, that’s right. She’s a dick.
Possible selling point: Campaign slogan — “Vote ALP and Get Your Roxon”.
Greatest asset: Membership of the dominant faction (but she’s a Labor woman, so it’s not like they’ll ever give her anything in return).
Odds: 300:1.

Dr Carmen Lawrence. Member for Fremantle (WA). Faction: Left.
Now, is there anyone in the entire country who doesn’t know, in their heart of hearts, that Carmen Lawrence should be the next leader of the ALP? Stop laughing, I’m serious! A former premier of WA (indeed, Australia’s first woman premier), a smart and talented parliamentary performer, a Ph.D. in psychology and an unwed mother. If it weren’t for Penny bloody Easton and Richard sodding Court, Lawrence (who was acquitted of the ludicrous charges brought against her) would be PM already. Except she’s a woman.
Possible selling point: Would appeal to the sandgropers (but so does Beazley, apparently).
Greatest asset: Is not in jail.
Odds: 1000:1.

Bob McMullan. Member for Fraser (ACT). Faction: Unaligned.
Just kidding

Peter Garrett. Member for Kingsford Smith (NSW). Faction: Unaligned.
Well, why not? The young people would like it, and by “young people”, I mean the ageing baby boomers who make up the rump fanbase of Midnight Oil. Australia’s first rockstar politician (no, John Gorton doesn’t count), Garrett may be inexperienced in parliament but he’d certainly be entertaining in the leader’s debate. Standing approximately triple John Howard’s height, it’d be like watching Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger in Twins.
Possible selling point: He’s not a sell-out, he just joined the Labor Party because they have such great environment policy.
Greatest asset: Extensive back-catalogue of anti-American rock lyrics.
Odds: 2:1.

Martin Ferguson. Member for Batman (VIC). Faction: Left.
Like Bob Hawke and Simon Crean before him, and Jennie George after him, Marn Frsn came into the parliament via the presidency of the ACTU. They say talent skips a generation, so the odds are good that Marty’s got the right stuff. With that round face and those golden locks, he looks a bit like Dennis the Menace at middle age, but don’t let that fool you. Marn’s trademark faint whiff of bovver boy, and his distinctive, no-nonsense, vowel-free speaking style make him a key contender for the leadership in this writer’s opinion. Let’s face it: the Ferguson boys are Labor royalty, so one of them has to be leader one day — and it ain’t gonna be Laurie.
Possible selling point: He’s tough, he’s direct, and he’s not afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, comrade.
Greatest asset: The hair — so soft, so red — like … flax.
Odds: Even money.

The House of Representatives is debating the Marriage Act Amendment Bill – the proposed law which would “outlaw gay marriage” (notwithstanding the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal anyway) and ban same-sex couples from adopting children overseas.

Right now, Tanya Plibersek is speaking, and of course she is the voice of reason, compassion and common sense. The lone voice. The honourable gentleman preceding her (didn’t catch the old bastard’s name) is more typical of the discourse around this issue. The argument goes something like this: marriage is the fundamental institution of society (so homosexuals must be excluded), marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman (and it can never change), and children are better off with married parents (and here’s the catch-22, kids: queers can’t marry, so they shouldn’t be parents).

It’s a very neat and tidy circular argument. And it completely ignores reality. Family – not marriage – is the fundamental unit of society, and families come in many forms. Marriage is only one way of forming families, but it also carries special rights and privileges, and in a pluralistic society, while those special rights and privileges continue, marriage should therefore be available to all. And children are best off in loving, supportive families, no matter how those families are constructed.

The honourable old bastard can’t see any of this, of course. Instead he talks about the “threat” to marriage and society posed by same-sex marriage and the need to “draw a line in the sand” to stop it.

This is the nub of my feeling about this issue. It’s all about the line in the sand. We queers didn’t draw the line, we have only ever argued that we deserve equal rights, we have never asked for marriage. But the line has been drawn. Its purpose is to contain us.

Our duty is to cross it.