Australian Labor implode.

[classical_hero]

For those not Australian the here is some history behind the current issues. In 2007 for the first time in over a decade we have a Labor government under the leadership o Kevin Rudd and his deputy, Julia Gillard. But about half a year out from the next election n 2010 most people in the part have had enough of his authoritarian streak and kicked him out of the top job and gave it to his deputy. So ever since then Kevin Rudd has been doing his best to undermine the rest of the party, until he quit the party late yesterday night. So now the knives are coming out as a result of it. This is the first time I have ever seen a ruling government be this dysfunctional in office. It is common for the opposition to be like this, but never in the history of Australian politics. So here is our treasurers responce to the whole situation.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/wayne-swans-official-statement-20120222-1to8e.html

Prime Minister Gillard and I and the overwhelming majority of our colleagues have been applying our Labor values to the policy challenges in front of us and we’re succeeding despite tremendous political obstacles.

For the sake of the labour movement, the Government and the Australians which it represents, we have refrained from criticism to date.

However for too long, Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the broader labour movement and the country as a whole, and that needs to stop.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The Party has given Kevin Rudd all the opportunities in the world and he wasted them with his dysfunctional decision making and his deeply demeaning attitude towards other people including our caucus colleagues. He sought to tear down the 2010 campaign, deliberately risking an Abbott Prime Ministership, and now he undermines the Government at every turn.

He was the Party’s biggest beneficiary then its biggest critic; but never a loyal or selfless example of its values and objectives.

It goes on further, but it is by the one of the most critical words I have ever seen written towards someone on the same side of politics. It is basically a real mess.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I don't see how one former leader quitting during a hissy-fit is the party "imploding". Sounds like if anything it'll just reinforce some sense of solidarity in the party.

 

[Hitro]

How would you summarize the political values of Kevin Rudd or, if applicable, the ones he actually works for?

 

[classical_hero]

Labour are Centre-left in the scheme of Australian politics and the Liberals are Centre-right.

@VC, this has been coming to head for almost two weeks now.

 

[Hitro]

I know both of that. I meant Mr Rudd in particular.

 

[classical_hero]

Well he basically is following the same thing that Gillard is doing, so it is not really much a change of politics, just a change of personnel.

 

[Virote_Considon]

@ch: Yeah, I still ain't seeing an implosion. If the Australian Labour Party was to implode, it wouldn't exist anymore as a significant political organisation, if at all. This is just a member quitting in a hissy-fit.

 

[classical_hero]

Well I am looking at it as a running government sort of implosion, where they implode while running government and basically piss plenty of people off with this episode and run their chances at a third term.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

There is a significant difference between Gillard and Rudd in terms of how there power base is built . Traditionally , a Labor leader needs to be a member of the strongest faction (right , left , center left etc) . This faction will then annoint the party leader .

Rudd's rise to power was unique in that it was built on huge public popularity , he was not a member of any faction .However, this leaves him vulnerable when his public support drops as he can't rely on factional support to prop up his leadership .

So from here , the popular view appears to be that Gillard will call for a leadership ballot on Monday . Rudd has stated he would never call a challenge on a sitting leader , which allows him to take the high moral ground as this is how he was knifed previously , but in reality it's probably a reflection of his lack of confidence that he has the support to win.

For Gillard , even if she wins the ballot on Monday , anything but an extremely convincing win weakens her position . She would be leader of a party that clearly is not unified behind her . And she will have Kevin Rudd , freed from the role of foreign minister and the dignified air that this position demands , able to snipe and connive from the backbenches .

In the unlikely case that Rudd wins the ballot on Monday (Opinion seems to be that he does not have enough support) , a close victory is not nearly as damaging as one is for Gillard . This is because the party line can be "The MP's that voted for Gillard did so out of previously expressed loyalty for the exisiting party leader , loyalty which is now easily transferred to the new party leader"

 

[bhsup]

Given this instability, have you guys ever considered implementing a more stable presidential system where your chief executive's term isn't fickle and beholden to the whims of parliament?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Given this instability, have you guys ever considered implementing a more stable presidential system where your chief executive's term isn't fickle and beholden to the whims of parliament?

What ? And return a semblance of "people power" to the political system ? . Politicians ain't gonna do it when they have such a vested interest in the status quo , while voters are just too apathetic and jaded when it comes to the political process to raise enough groundswell of support for such a thing .

For example . You would never see something like a Tea Party movement here . We just don't care enough and the end result is a standard of debate that is pretty infantile . The upside I suppose is you would never see huge crowds turning up to cheer on politicians waving Australian flags

 

[emzie]

I have a hard time believing any one named Kevin is fit to rule a country.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I have a hard time believing any one named Kevin is fit to rule a country.

Well I guess I should just quit any notion that I could do anything in politics.

 

[Hitro]

I have a hard time believing any one named Kevin is fit to rule a country.

Yeah, this should be reserved to people called Milhous, Walker or Hussein.

 

[Arwon]

Ugh. It's all very unedifying because the differences are entirely personal, not policy-based. However, the government has been basically decent, if terrible at selling itself, and too reluctant to roll back toxic elements of the Howard legacy.

I just hope they sort this out and get back to the business of preventing the truly awful Tony Abbott from ever becoming Prime minister (shudder).

Given this instability, have you guys ever considered implementing a more stable presidential system where your chief executive's term isn't fickle and beholden to the whims of parliament?

Meh. Presidential systems are generally more prone to instability or gridlock. This isn't even really instability, it is entirely within Westminster conventions. The PM has to have the support of the majority of the House. If that changes, there's a new leader. Simple.

It would probably be an improvement for the Labor Party to reform how it chooses its parliamentary leader, but that's an issue for their party to sort out.

 

[Tee Kay]

This has been drum up way out of proportion by the media, all to the detriment of the ALP's prospects in the next election of course. Politics is no longer about government, planning and policies; it's all about personality conflicts now.

 

[azzaman333]

I'm not sure which is worse. The fact that these squabbling idiots are running the country, or the growing possibility that Tony Abbott could end up as PM because of this.

 

[Leoreth]

Given this instability, have you guys ever considered implementing a more stable presidential system where your chief executive's term isn't fickle and beholden to the whims of parliament?

Given this deadlock, have you guys ever considered a more pragmatic parliamentary system where your chief executive's term isn't blocked and impeded by the whims of Congress?

 

[Cutlass]

Given this deadlock, have you guys ever considered a more pragmatic parliamentary system where your chief executive's term isn't blocked and impeded by the whims of Congress?

Most of the time it isn't like this.

 

[Tarquelne]

Every nation should significantly change it's government system every 100-200 years.

I'm convinced it'll set back those intent on gaming the system more than it'd set back everybody else. And fight voter (or whatever) apathy.

Plus it'd be fun.