In evaluating the performance of a Prime Minister, 2 things: - separate the PM from the political flavour of their party. If you can't, at least ask yourself "who's our worst PM?" - decide: what exactly is a PM's job, anyway?
So Albo: as Labor PM's go, he's probably about middle of the road. The worst PM? Gillard, by a street. Of any political flavour.
Why? What is a PM's job? - keep the government majority in place. This is usually easy enough; much harder when it's a slender majority, and difficult if a minority government. This is one thing Gillard managed to do, albeit dishonourably. - be the spokesperson for the government's policy, its vision. Remember any of Gillard's speeches? They were awful. And I'm not counting the so-called misogyny speech: that was a mere parliamentary riposte. - to be responsible for ministerial placement and performance. What self-respecting political leader I ask you would have kept Joe Ludwig in the ministry? Any PM Is only as good as the worst minister they retain.
Albo? Government majority not under threat, but if Labor is returned next election, will probably be minority. He can string 2 words together, and sound as if he means it. The cabinet? Bit early, but so far no shockers.
