FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
/facepalm
Australian Labor implode.
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
Reflexive cynicism is a great weapon for we monarchists as it automatically puts the punters against the idea of a group of grubby politicians choosing their head of state.
Howard was a case in point, he wanted the president chosen by parliament and the Aus voters did not trust him/them.
Besides any Republican supporting voters who do not demand the right to vote directly for their president are hardly upholding the ideals of democracy.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
Oh,you mean like the German president, pity he had to resign.
Aussie voters will change to trust their well thought of politicians to select their head of state instead of them choosing him, hmm, when will Aussies start thinking a lot of their politicians ?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Kevin Rudd is no the Messiah, he's just a naughty boy. Well Julia won very convincingly over Rudd in one of the largest margins for a long time.
Surprising, some Labor types are saying there is nothing Rudd can do, well unlike most Labor types he is a wealthy man and does not need his MPs salary.
Him pulling the nuclear option and resigning his seat means a by-election and the Seat going to the coalition .
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,848
Most of that analysis (and from other polls too) would've been over a week ago before the spill announcement.
Here's an interesting article at ABC about what the consolidated polls tell us: http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3439649.htm
This has been pretty clear, but time will tell if the current Govt can maintain the recent trend. I bet they're regretting giving the coalition so much campaign material over the last week.
Did anyone notice how this whole thing came to a head at about the same time Channel 7 started screening their much-hyped new flagship drama Revenge?
Kevin seems to have a chummy relationship with the team from Sunrise, so I wonder if the challenge occured at this particular time by design because it was of maximum mutual benefit to Rudd, who really just wanted revenge and knew that he didn't stand a chance of winning the leadership ballot, and Channel 7 who wanted an extra boost in the new ratings season?
Kevin seems to have a chummy relationship with the team from Sunrise, so I wonder if the challenge occured at this particular time by design because it was of maximum mutual benefit to Rudd, who really just wanted revenge and knew that he didn't stand a chance of winning the leadership ballot, and Channel 7 who wanted an extra boost in the new ratings season?
She could only sack him from the cabinet right? He quit his ministerial post anyway and he doesn't seem nearly as upset this time as he was about losing PM. Besides, how well would Gillard sacking Rudd go down with the electorate? The fallout from that could have been worse for Gillard and Labour than what we're seeing now (and Rudd might have responded by challenging Gillard for the leadership anyway, or a Rudd ally might have renounced support for the minority government leading to an early election).
Rudd may be egotistical, but I think he would also be smart enough to realise that he had no chance of taking back the leadership until after the next election, and even then only if Labour lost decisively. If he was able to accept the fact that he wasn't going to regain the leadership anytime soon, then imo he still would have been quite satisfied with severely hampering the chances of Gillard and co winning the next election and providing the Coalition with a wealth of material to use in campaign ads. If Labour does get decisively defeated at the next election (i.e. partly as a result of the past week's events) the it will be more likely that the Labour party will want to replace Gillard with someone who can restore Labour's standing i.e. Rudd.
It's not as crazy as it first seems. Media and political interests collude all the time, and both are ultimately in the business of trying to sell things to people and manipulate peoples' perceptions of reality (i.e. rather than helping them make informed rational decisions based on the truth). It would make sense to them to work together in cases where they can find mutual benefit in under-handed arrangements.
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,848
I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the next Labor caucus meeting. Me thinks shouting at Julia be the game.
But this whole Bob Carr farce shows how pathetic she is. She lies, she's weak, and she's going to be gone.
It's such a shame there's no party that deserves to lead.
But this whole Bob Carr farce shows how pathetic she is. She lies, she's weak, and she's going to be gone.
It's such a shame there's no party that deserves to lead.
'Weak' would be an interesting word to use to describe this, though. I mean, if her colleagues were against it, how is it weak leadership to maintain her prerogative in picking the cabinet? I bet there'd be a chorus claiming she's weak if Stephen Smith had got the job.
Will be interesting to see what impact bringing in a reasonably popular statesman of the party (who happens to be a symbol of party stability) will have. A cynic might be forgiven for thinking this means one extra competitor in the run up to the next federal election.
Will be interesting to see what impact bringing in a reasonably popular statesman of the party (who happens to be a symbol of party stability) will have. A cynic might be forgiven for thinking this means one extra competitor in the run up to the next federal election.
