(June 29, 2013 at 4:57 am)Aractus Wrote: Well as your resident Lib-Party member, let me offer a small piece of opinion!

The ALP have now knifed 3 of their last 4 prime ministers: Hawke, Rudd, Gillard. They did it to themselves.

So I'm not surprised that Rudd hasn't offered his policies - the ones that are vitally different to what the Australian public is currently fed up with, but I can't stress the point enough that the actual policies themselves have nothing whatsoever to do with this. And that I think is what is so corrupt and dishonourable about the whole thing. All it's about is trying to "win the game". Well that's fine if you're playing games, but it's not fine if you're trying to govern a democratic country.

Actually I believe the happenings federally over the last few years are a result of the amount of attention paid to opinion polls. The bad run of opinion polls was in my opinion contribution to both the replacement of Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard, along with Malcolm Turnbull with Tony Abbott.

I would argue that at a state level the same phenomenon is occurring as well. Because my state's former Liberal premier Ted Baillieu if he had not decided to step down voluntarily, would have been deposed in the same way both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were.

All up I believe all of this is a result of the dominance of career politicians (who have done very little in their lives outside politics in some capacity) have gained over our state and federal parliaments.

BTW: I am a pox on both their houses type of person when it comes to Australia's major parties, at this forthcoming election I will be voting for the Wikileaks Party.

You're incorrect about Turnbull and Abbott. Turnbull believed in introducing an ETS, the majority of Liberal MP's did not, and as such he wasn't able to fairly represent the party's decision on that issue, instead trying to lead by of his leadership. Abbott only won by 1 vote, but it had nothing to do with opinion polls and I'll be the first to say that I do believe that Turnbull is more popular with the public.

(June 29, 2013 at 8:36 am)Aractus Wrote: You're incorrect about Turnbull and Abbott. Turnbull believed in introducing an ETS, the majority of Liberal MP's did not, and as such he wasn't able to fairly represent the party's decision on that issue, instead trying to lead by of his leadership. Abbott only won by 1 vote, but it had nothing to do with opinion polls and I'll be the first to say that I do believe that Turnbull is more popular with the public.

I don't deny Turnbull supporting the ETS contributed to his downfall as leader of the Liberal Party, I would see as the icing on the cake. However the run of poor opinion polls for the Coalition was I believe was the underlying factor.

Come to think of it, the main reason why Rudd was deposed first time around, was because Rudd was not a good team player. A Prime Minister (especially a Labor one), by being the leader of a political party's caucus in Parliament needs to be a good team player. The run of bad opinion polls gave those aggravated by Rudd's leadership style to excuse they needed.

When Gillard knifed Rudd in '10, the ALP was just ahead of the Coalition in the opinion polls (two party preferred). The thing is that there was no great turnaround when they got to election, it was basically where it had been at the point when Rudd was toppled. What we've seen this time around is a swing back to the ALP now that Rudd's taken over - but I think people are smarter than this. By the time they get to the polls, they'll have realized that the leader makes no difference; or they'll have remembered why Rudd was overturned in the first place.

Furthermore, Rudd has been consistently undermining Gillard since 2010.

I repeat what I said before, I find it disgraceful that caucus members ("faceless men") would vote out their own prime ministers like this. They're spineless, nobody knows what they really believe in or what they really stand for anymore, and dysfunction, chaos and factionalism is overrunning their political party. And then, we have the Green's leader Christine Milne come out and attack the government on their instability and credibility; yet she's supposed to be a partner with the ALP in government! Why can't the leader of the ALP - now Rudd - come out and make the same clear, bold and aggressive statements against the Greens? Why are they so afraid of them??

It's fucking shmozle is what it is....

Labor are hopeless at governing and financial management and the Liberals aren't that great at social management. There are no other parties large enough to take over and don't even THINK about the fucking Greens!

Titanic Australia....here we come.

(June 29, 2013 at 11:01 pm)Aractus Wrote: When Gillard knifed Rudd in '10, the ALP was just ahead of the Coalition in the opinion polls (two party preferred). The thing is that there was no great turnaround when they got to election, it was basically where it had been at the point when Rudd was toppled. What we've seen this time around is a swing back to the ALP now that Rudd's taken over - but I think people are smarter than this. By the time they get to the polls, they'll have realized that the leader makes no difference; or they'll have remembered why Rudd was overturned in the first place.

I remember reading reports in the press that many in ALP parliamentary party thought they could lose the 2010 federal election if Rudd had continued remaining leader. Plus Rudd's leadership style aggravated many in the caucus, because he did not lead like a Labor Party leader should (in their opinion). Any excuse how many weak, was enough for those caucus members aggravated by Rudd to topple him.

Although I believe if he had remained Labor leader the Labor party would have won a majority (although a reduced one) at the 2010 election.

Quote:I repeat what I said before, I find it disgraceful that caucus members ("faceless men") would vote out their own prime ministers like this. They're spineless, nobody knows what they really believe in or what they really stand for anymore, and dysfunction, chaos and factionalism is overrunning their political party. And then, we have the Green's leader Christine Milne come out and attack the government on their instability and credibility; yet she's supposed to be a partner with the ALP in government! Why can't the leader of the ALP - now Rudd - come out and make the same clear, bold and aggressive statements against the Greens? Why are they so afraid of them??

The Greens aren't in a formal coalition with the Labor party at a federal level. If they were there would be Green representatives in the cabinet (as in the Tasmanian state cabinet) for example. The agreement that Julia Gillard made with the Greens, was essentially the same type which was made with Windsor and Oakeshott. Essentially to pass supply bills and not vote for motions of non confidence in the government. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for Christine Miline to attack the government in these areas.

(June 30, 2013 at 2:59 am)Justtristo Wrote: I remember reading reports in the press that many in ALP parliamentary party thought they could lose the 2010 federal election if Rudd had continued remaining leader. Plus Rudd's leadership style aggravated many in the caucus, because he did not lead like a Labor Party leader should (in their opinion). Any excuse how many weak, was enough for those caucus members aggravated by Rudd to topple him.

Make no mistake, it was merely four faction leaders with the support of union heavyweight Paul Howes who rolled Rudd. The factional nature of the ALP is what makes the party so volatile.

Rudd was a dysfunctional prime minister. He's also a thoroughly horrible person.