#3 has passed 500 comments, so time for a new thread. Have at it.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Continued from part 3.
There is no doubt that Gillard’s MRRT represents a diminution of demands on extractive industries in relation to Rudd’s RSPT.
However, it is a huge reach to say that Gillard was in cahoots with the mining industry over this. Mining lobbyists continued their advertising campaign against the MRRT. That is odd behaviour by conspirators.
Far more credible as an explanation of the transition from RSPT to MRRT is Gillard’s ability to keep the bird in the hand rather than lose the two birds in the bush. In other words, Gillard had an acute sense of what was politically possible.
Rudd, on the other hand, was immune in this case to a realistic appraisal of his ability to crash through.
Once the MRRT is in place it is a simple matter to tinker with liabilities, as is evidenced by tinkering with the Medicare rebates.
The RSPT fiasco is not evidence of any pro-mining conspiracy. It is evidence of Rudd’s ego-driven failure to grasp political reality.
That sums it up nicely.
I am surprised no one has brought up the 2020 Summit, too.
Kohler makes some pretty telling criticisms of it: calls it a deficit tax, giving away more than it raises. Check the budget forecasts over the next few years: its a LOSS to the govt.
I dont agree with his criticism of the link to super, but worth reading for the numbers.
Incidentally, it was the smaller mining co’s who continued the campaign – cos they didnt get a sweet deal, like the big ones.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-23/kohler-mining-tax-everyone-a-loser/3688070
Re: 2020 summit – Piers bought it up on ‘insiders’ this am.
Reflection: In November 2007, Cambell Newman – as Lord Mayor of Brisbane – held the highest elected position of any Lib/NP person in the country.
If Kevin Rudd loses, then “I gotta zip!” should refer to his mouth.
It’s suddenly dawned, this “Only I can save the world” behaviour/attitude.
I think we might be dealing with one sick puppy.
LEFT-E: The most surprising Rudd supporter, from my perspective, is Martin Ferguson. I thought he was part of the Gillard inner circle and was instrumental in designing the revised mining tax. Does anyone have any idea why he’s anti-Gillard?
We have Wilkie to thank for the raising of the MRRT threshold—the downside of minority government—but as Katz said, once we have the tax, it is possible to alter the terms, just putting one in place was the major hurdle.
The Gillardists should keep up their personal attacks on Rudd, because they only improve his position.
Yairs, and John Howard, who refused an apology to First Australians, was the very picture of mental health, was he? I always thought that the best thing that Rudd had going for him was that he wasn’t Ratty.
The fun has gone. I want Don Dunstan back. What a bunch of prawns. I’d vote for Kate Ellis as leader if she wore shorter skirts. In order to sustain a gender balanced approach I’ll say that I’d vote or any Labor man who also wore short skirts. Or shorts like Don Dunstan.
I cant help thinking a lot of analyses have missed the basic point: this is the inevitable blowback for June 23 2010. Insider can blame Rudd’s ‘treachery’ all you like, It was simply inevitable.
The PMship is not the plaything of factional leaders. They lead a national campaign, and like it or not, the public sees politics that way. And this is not NSW.
A senior figure like Albanese sees this, the public sees it too. All the stuff about personalities, and especially the bland managerial insights about the “due functioning of cabinet govt” are totally secondary in explaining whats happening here, and whats at stake.
the truth is: Arbib, Bitar, Feeney, Shorten, and yes, Gillard thoroughly *DESERVE* this eruption of protest. Deep down, they know it too. Albanese is the conscience on this point that the ALP cant ignore. At least one-third of caucus agrees. Astoundingly high, given the risks associated.
Above all, the leaders polls are quite unequivocal on this point: the public are embracing the opportunity to participate in dealing out this lesson, with their middle fingers held high.
And no, its not just LNP voters. Its Labor voters.
You just cant roll a popular first term PM, especially not after 11 years of Howard. What is happening now was made inevitable in June 2010. And It probably wont have finished its run, come Monday.
Looking to the future, I think the numbers will favour Gillard around 2 to 1. In view of the fact that Rudd has now been rejected twice by his colleagues I think his leadership aspirations will be finished. The minute he starts talking Gillard down, as he has been for at least a year, or backgounding journalists about her and his plans, which he has been doing, he will be outed.
The polls are difficult but not impossible. If Gillard doesn’t improve them significantly in 2012, there may be leadership questions again. I’d like to see Smith and Plibersek, who have conducted themselves with impecabble dignity and decency.
What we need, though, is someone to turn the Labor Party into a broad social democratic party, getting rid of the privileged place of unions. This may actually be better done from opposition.
So if Labor loses, the hope would be that that bunch of clowns – Abbott, Robb, Hockey etc – perform so badly they become a one-term government, while healing and transformation takes place in Labor. Followed by three terms of Labor to heal the country.
The ideal might be Abbott with a hung parliament and dependent on Katter. On that thought, I’ll head out for the rest of the day.
In any event Katz, it was very clear that the idea of making the push for RSPT in a context in which he was at best kicking a key policy — carbon pricing — down the road, was dumb with knobs on. It looked ad hoc and desperate, and it wasn’t realistic to think Rudd could get it done in the time available.
Had he won on the ETS in 2009, he could have started a discussion in December that year over “how to ensure that the wealth of the mining boom best served the country as a whole” and indicated the start of a process of open debate with stakeholders with the Henry recommendations in mind.
So no target in an election year. He wins comfortably, gets a Green-hued senate and Big Dirt finds itself with much less leverage in the discussions come 2011. We’d have got a much better package that way, assuming that was indeed the objective.
test — mod bucket in operation
I don’t get why the anti-Rudd sentiment is being so vehemently expressed here. What are you trying to prove? Who are you trying to convince?
This is all just water-cooler chatter. It’s not like anybody here has a vote in the caucus…
…or do we??
*cue theremin*
Lefty E, what happened in June 2010, shouldn’t have happened that way, but after all that and the leaking during the campaign, more citizens voted for Gillard than Abbott. Gillard’s polls sank like a stone when she announced the “carbon tax”, she was tagged as a liar, and has only partially recovered. Moreover, she doesn’t cut through with voters and will never, I think, win Queensland or improve the disastrous polling there. The Nielsen poll was 45/55 against Labor in Qld on 2PP.
You’ve got to forget Rudd, though, and look at other options.
I agree this would be more amusing than straight Abbott.
I really dont understand why a leader with demonstrable public support “has” to be forgotten Brian. I’d rather lose all his unhinged critics in cabinet: honestly, who would we miss from Swan, Crean, Burke, Emerson, Garrett? No one. Maybe Roxon Id miss. The rest can go.
Shorten, Smith, Combet et al on the Gillard side – and the Rudd camp ministers have all been more restrained. Losing your nut wasnt compulsory here.
What Lefty E said. I’ve never seen so many otherwise intelligent people so assiduously miss the point. But really this is beyond tedious.
Why don’t we all admit that Rudd is the anti-christ and move forward happily ever after?
What Lefty E and Adrian said. I’m all for yum cha, it’s all smiles in the seat of Griffith today.
What Lefty E and Adrian said. I’m all for yum cha, it’s all smiles in the seat of Griffith today.
It’s also interesting, with a couple of exceptions how most of Gillard’s supporters in cabinet would be the subject of intense criticism on this blog, but now every word they utter is accepted as the gospel truth.
Sorry, moving toward the inevitable victory under PM, Abbott slayer, Gillard, deliverer extraordinaire.
BRIAN – There is NO other alternative to Rudd I’m afraid. That is the only way the ALP can tell the Australian electorate that it has learnt its lesson. I’m sorry, but it has to eat a s…-sandwich on this one before it can move on.
I actually like Smith. He seems very decent. However, he also looks like a photocopy of a real politician I’m afraid.
Lefty E @ 17. Because the public are wrong, ignorant, or have been duped by Rudd’s public persona. Or probably all three.
Bloody stupid voters.
I might add that Gillard’s asylum and refugee policy (and foreign policy more broadly) absolutely STINKS. I shudder even thinking of it.
The most right-wing crap Ive ever seen from an ALP leader. No wonder Bowen has jumped ship.
Ill say it: Rudd’s was objectively better, from a progressive perspective.
Just another wee factor for the mix
You’ve got to forget Rudd, though, and look at other options.
But Brian, why would anyone forget Rudd when he’s a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem (no Labor votes in QLD), and there is no other plausible solution. I feel this kind of thinking is mirrored in most of the Gillard camp: “We can and will do and say anything but go back to Rudd”. Well good for you guys, destroying the village in order to save it.
A couple of exceptions, Adrian? Wong, Plibersek, Smith, Combet, Roxon etc haven’t been heavily criticized here, at least not that I’m aware of.
Martin Ferguson and Chris Bowen however have been, and for good reason.
Peter Brent (Mumbles), greatest of all Australian political commentators, say Caucus should remove Julia
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/skip_to_the_chase/
Jeb Bush positions himself as saviour of the GOP:
http://m.theage.com.au/world/a-new-job-for-jeb-bush-20120225-1tvam.html
Jeb’s motto: “I’m smarterer than Dubya.”
Is there a Jeb Bush in the Federal Caucus?
??Bowen pushed for Labor to accept a return to the Pacific solution of the LNP, the NSW right including Bowen pushed for offshore processing to be adopted at conference; these things are on the record.
I’m sure caucus will love being told what to do by Mumbles.
Looking at the folks siding with Rudd, I wonder how many women would be in the Rudd cabinet. And for that matter, I wonder how many Ministers wouldn’t be from New South Wales?
Im just suggesting he’s sick of selling the shit sandwhich, Su. Nothing at stake for him if Gillard wins – relieved of giant headache.
The sh*t sandwich that he and his colleagues on the NSW right, more than any others, have been determined that the Labor party eat.
One thing that emerges out of all this, is that the electorate apparently care more about the value of their vote than jaded politicos, assuming public apathy, might have guessed. Gillard’s equating Rudd’s popularity as on a par with ‘celebrity big brother’ betrays the attitude behind the original coup. She sneers at the idea that what voters want matters. It is a bad look. The means of despatching Rudd were not justified by the end result. Even if Rudd was as bad as they said, a more open and fair challenge should have been mounted out of respect for the electorate. Whatever technicalities might be trotted out in defence of the action, legitimacy of a government is in the eyes of the electorate. You cannot force people to a view on a technicality. Apparently, democracy in Australia is more passionate than we thought. Two good reads in The Age today – Anthony Ackroyd on how people respond to his Rudd and Maxine McKew on how Gillard and co’s insistance on dropping the ETS was critical in Rudd’s downfall.
Oops, should have read ‘his Rudd impersonations’.
Adrian @ 23 – it’ll be a clear case of the ALP parliamentary party doing something that they know that their voter base doesn’t want. When the democrats did that they imploded. Being that out of sync with your supporters is not sustainable.
If you’ve got a better explanation of why he appears not to care if he loses his portfolio in the likely event of a Gillard win, Su, lets hear it.
Actually Lefty E is she was the sort to want to punish Bowen, she would keep him on : )
Good points Shingle and Chris. What would those telly-watchin’ bogans in voterland know? And who cares when its about ‘better management’, …or something.
If Kev really wasn’t that bad – why are so many marginal seat holders prepared to vote for Gillard?
One does not commit political suicide without significantly good reason.
My personal view is anyone who can treat the Chief of the ADF with such contempt as to keep them waiting for hours and then send them away without meeting them is clearly unfit for the office of PM.
@ 27 & 30:
Mumbles? Wasn’t he in the Dick Tracy comics?
“if” not “is”. By which I mean, it is such a thankless horrible task that I think he would be hoping that Rudd PM would shift him elsewhere. Rudd would put a woman in the portfolio if he could, because when there is a thankless task to be allocated who else but a woman?
@25
You have to move on because Rudd just isn’t acceptable to the caucus. The party, as opposed to the people voting for it, don’t want him as leader. Regardless of whether or not you think it is an idiotic position to have (and I can see both sides on this, though you know which I have come down on), it will never change. Parties that are staring a thumping election loss in the face should be expected to jump at the chance of installing someone that actually has a chance to lead them to victory. The fact that Labor won’t and not even by a small margin speaks volumes about how Rudd is seen by the majority of the party. As I have said a few times, the leader of a party cannot also be its most divisive figure. It just isn’t sustainable. Gillard will almost certainly lose the next election and then she will be gone. The question will then become who is best to lead the party and whether they have the fortitude to try and reform it. It won’t be easy. The incestuous relationship between the factions and the unions is deeply entrenched and reform will require those that currently have power to act to dilute it. The only way I see that happening is if the party thinks that reform is the only way back into power. But that could take a very long time.
I bet Chuck Norris would be more popular than Kevin Rudd.
Brian, the thought of Abbott having to deal with minority govt and Katter, combined with an extremely hostile Senate, warms my heart.
For the record, Maxine is not the most objective person to be commenting on Rudd. He was personally responsible for her preselection. In the run up to the 2007 election, when she wasn’t campaigning she was camped in Kevin’s office.
You’re right, LO. It just brings up what an incredibly stupid mistake replacing him in the first place was, and the apparent fact that few in the Labor Party seem capable of recognising it. Makes me so mad, how they effed everything up and threw it away like that, and are now compounding the error.
But if eye witnesses are to be believed, by June 2010 Rudd’s government was in free fall. Perhaps the ministry could have held things together and even have won an election.
But then the problem would be worse. How to save the ALP from Rudd after he had been re-elected? Australia’s Peronists would have been even more outraged at the Party’s treatment of the “People’s Champion”.
The attempt by some to create contrived policy differences between shit sandwich 1 and shit sandwich 2 is ridiculous. There is no difference.
Neither of them believes strongly in anything. Everything is a means to the end of political survival. (And hasn’t that worked well?) Keating’s injunction that good policy is good politics might as well have been in Sanscrit for all the notice they have taken of it.
So what we’ve got is Juan Peron (complete with a tweeting missus, albeit with not quite the glamour of Evita) going toe to toe with Edna Everidge.
Interesting interiew with Martin Ferguson on channel 10. Now, Im no fan of Mar’n, but he claims the mining tax business was already as good as sorted on the night of June 23 2010. Its an interesting claim that Ive not heard before.
He also says that Rudd ‘wont come again’ after tomorrow, but the way he says makes it clear it wont be Gillard in 2013 either. I must say, Im not a believer in the 3rd leader thesis, at least not for beating Abbott in 2013.
Frankly, If the ALP settles for losing, which now seems likely (for the reasons LO says) then we are within our rights to consider it a diseased and defunct institiution. Social democrats, anyone?
Anyway, Ive ranted enough on this topic. Lets see what happens tomorrow.
2020 Summit mention reminded me – where is Rudd’s former adviser Annie O’Rourke? Has she come out and defended Mr Rudd lately? She was in print explaining his case on various issues last year.
Or is she staying mum with future consultancies in mind?
Come on Annie, speak up!
When I Googled “Rudd Peron”, Google asked me if I meant “Rude Person”.
Katz, how odd – when I googled “Rudd Peron” there was no “rude person” suggestion at all …
AT@50.
Yes, from memory O’Rourke came out to explain why a Kevin Rudd didn’t have the time to attend the funeral of Senator John Button. What was he doing again… of yes, visiting Cate Blanchett with her new baby in hospital (mind you I have nothing against Cate, nor Rudd visiting her – well sort of, it seems a bit strange, other than the photo opportunity), but the funeral of such a significant Labor figure should not have been ignored.
And besides that, Button was a really nice bloke and deserved Rudd’s attendance.
The whole thing is pretty screwed up. When I first joined Kevin I was pretty excited about what lay ahead and thought that he was pretty clearly the most able person in the Labor caucus. Even though when I left the office Labor were way ahead in the polls, I’d become very pessimistic. Not because I didn’t still think he was able, but because I could more clearly see how other aspects of his personality were going to lead to problems in the future.
The screw up over the ETS certainly didn’t surprise me. The commitment to the environment only ever ran skin deep. And I don’t mean just Rudd – it was never really a passion for Gillard of Swan either. Labor were terrified about an effective scare campaign getting going on carbon pricing. That is why it took them forever to start talking openly about the fact that it would raise the price of some goods and services and hurt some carbon intensive industries. It is also why the tried so hard to find a package that the coalition would vote for through 2009. The prospect of a double dissolution election fought on that issue alone frightened the hell out of all but a few people in the ministry.
It was never a particularly courageous group of people. Most of the policy that was produced was timid. You could see that in how they ran away from their own success on the stimulus plan. You can see it now in how they are managing the whole return to surplus debate. You could see it in how little they were prepared to take up from the Henry review. The irony was that that the mining tax was picked out because they thought it would be a simple sell to the public.
AT @ 52 – google search is quite personalized these days so not surprising you’d see something different from Katz
LO, the picture you paint is of a ministry that was poll-driven.
1. Did this change over time?
2. Were some more poll-driven than others?
3. What can you say about the evolution of attempts to influence the polls?
4. What calculations were involved in the conclusion that the RSPT was an easy sell?
Ok LO, but Maxine McKew is also seasoned and respected journalist who certainly seems to be fair minded, and I don’t see that you can discount what she says about the undermining of the ETS policy just because she is on Rudd’s side. So Rudd had a temper, and didn’t sleep enough, and things got extremely difficult, but I haven’t been convinced that he should have been replaced the way he was. There was so much going on in that first term (e.g. GFC, forced carbon back down, manoevering from factional players, mining industry campaigning) that would have ‘messed with his head’, Finally, if he was truly so irredeemably bad, it makes voters feel that the ALP has just played us for fools. It’s not the first time that they’ve presented us with a leader that they later simply cannot abide . It means that you simply cannot trust that they are any good at finding a leader who can both represent them and appeal to the public. I personally just feel so foolish and stupid for putting the amount of time I have into following politics. And for the hopes I had after the Howard era. Julia Gillard may be a very competent manager, but there is no inspiration. It probably sounds unkind but the whole ‘I get things done’ mantra reminds me of the Mussolini defence – ‘keeping the trains running on time’. Yes, it is nice if the trains run on time (although apparently they didn’t http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/rear-window-making-italy-work-did-mussolini-really-get-the-trains-running-on-time-1367688.html)
but that is not why people vote ALP or Green instead of Coalition. What I mean to say is – it’s a slippery slope kind of argument that the people’s choice doesn’t matter because efficiency is what really counts. Is democracy just window dressing? Ok, I think I’ve said enough – this whole thing has messed with my head.
My google also gives rudes person.
I rang the PMs office when she said it was all about delivery. Needed a pizza.
Mine gives root person.???
Adrian, Rudd has been accused of many things, but that is not one of them.
Don’t cry for me Albanese
Naturally you are bereft. You
All love my little ways
My super-rad persistence
I kept my promise
I’ll go the distance
And as for fortune, and as for fame
I never invited them in
Can I help it if God decreed I was inspired?
They’re no illusions
I’ve got the solutions so vote for me
Fair suck on the sauce bottle
You love me, and quite sensibly
Don’t cry for me Albanese
[chorus]
Have I said too much?
There’s plenty more I can think of to say to you.
But all you have to do is look at me to know
That every word is true
Does anybody know: has the leak of the Rudd Out-takes to YouTube been referred to the Federal police ? If not, doesn’t it seem strange that a breach of security at this level is being ignored or was this, as some have said , engineered by the Gillard camp to force K Rudd into the open?
But shingle, the only reason ‘why people vote ALP .. instead of Coalition’ is to keep Abbott/Howard/tehm! out. Even the true believers are pretty much reduced to this. But they still expect us to fall into line and do it.
Fran’s approach looks more and more attractive, even if it doesn’t keep Tony out this time – in the long term maybe it’s worth it.
The only question is could the local Greens win this time around with my valid vote – if so it may be worth preferencing one of the majors?
@62, of all people, Albo as the conscience of the party!
I think there’s evidence that Gillard is classy – eg Albo offering resignation and she knocking it back.
She may not need to be rolled Dec12/Jan2013 – if polls haven’t picked up after 6 months of goodies flowing the “punters way” via tax decreases, pension increases as enabled by CEF – then I reckon she will transition to being a senior minister in a say a Shorten/3rd Person govt.
At this point, what little is left of Rudd’s poison to media will dry up or be seen for what it is.
If she does this (or the polls pick up) she will become, in time an elder such as Whitlam, Hawke or Keating. We will look back in a decade and say, we could’ve done with more time with her. Rudd will never have this. And when Oakes finally goes into retirement and writes his memoirs, Rudd will be known as the rat rather than strongly suspected.
Andrew Elder has it: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/gillard-and-labor-leadership.html?m=1
http://stephenkoukoulas.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/reading-poll-data-badly.html kills the idea Rudd can win back the punters when his 3%2PP increase could be made up by removing his poison.
@64
How did the Greens go in the NSW election bloodbath?
Me thinks to many Green supporters took Frans approach.( that is if more Green representation is what you want).
Personally I hope it continues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbwxLGohUM0
“The blues is #1!”
Katz, I’ve been humming that since Giles’ comment yesterday. I love the last verse, no alteration needed at all.
I did change one word.
“Plenty”, yes, I’ve been issuing too many errata though!
Re Kevin Peron
At least we don’t have to worry about a military coup, although there could be a few senior officers who might be sorely tempted.
I wonder if anyone is aware of the wikileaks cable “ALP Factions Bide Their Time” 09Canberra188
It winds up saying (in early 2009):
This seems to suggest that the factions were just waiting for the polling for Rudd to slump and as soon as they did their move on Rudd was predetermined. Hence all this “chaos”, “dysfunctional”, “psychotic narcissism”, “said really mean things about Gillard in a pub in Adelaide” are just a form of post-facto mobbing Labor-style. There is probably a grain of truth in some of it – more effective that way – but little more than a caricature.
The prism that this needs to be viewed through is what is best for Bill Shorten? Going down in a massive defeat to Gillard is not good for Bill Shorten, if it means a minimum 2 terms in opposition. A direct take over by Shorten might work if it was a negotiated changing of the batons, but it might smell of factionalism.
What is properly sensible is to keep Kevin Rudd alive in this ballot with mid thirties votes and then a few months down the track negotiate a deal that will have Rudd as leader and Bill Shorten as deputy or treasurer, with an agreed transition to Shorten a couple of years into the next term.
I imagine that both business and the manufacturing unions will find the proposal of Rudd to moderate the carbon tax attractive.
Don’t be so sure Sam, there are tanks and stuff.
( please ignore rogue apostrophe at top left)
Rudd’s been a bit clever in going out and getting mobbed but I fear this will just make the ALP insiders hold even firmer.
Howard and Abbott must love this. In a way the ALP has created the ultimate wedge, witness everyone here dividing into either Gillard or Rudd camps. Either result could see their support drop by a third.
What’s the likelihood of this strategy?
-Rudd turns up on Monday and finds access to the chamber blocked.
-He’s handed a letter informing him that the ALP has kicked him out as a member and he is now ineligible to challenge for leadership.
-He is then told that as an independent he now faces a choice. Support the ALP and accept all the shit that Swan et al are going to heap on him or be solely responsible for Abbott becoming PM.
Is that a possibility?
Jumpy asked:
About as well as on could expect in a referendum on the NSW ALP.
There is optional preferential in NSW, so you can vote 1 Green and have it count if that’s what you want. You also don’t need to number all preferences in the LC.
Grey – “I imagine that both business and the manufacturing unions will find the proposal of Rudd to moderate the carbon tax attractive.”
Do you, yourself, find this a compelling idea, Grey?
Is it just me? Am I the only one who thinks that the ‘leaks’ in the 2010 have been over-emphasised and overly blamed for Gillard’s apparent drop in popularity in the second week and onwards??
If memory serves, Gillard sprung the proposed date of the election on an unprepared Liberal party and the public, and the Libs just didn’t have their s— together during that first week.
That gave Gillard and co a whole week to campaign and everything seemed hunky dory because the Libs were caught with their pants down. Sure it was leaked that Gillard didn’t think pensioners deserved an extra $30 a week, which showed us the real Julia, but by that stage the Liberals got into full gear.
She would not have won any extra seats without the leaks. A fact disputed by Barrie Cassidy.
Also when speaking about white-anting, why don’t journalists ask Shorten to explain about the many times he speaks to business leaders and tells them that he already has the numbers, – and can spill any time he fancies, – but is keeping his powder dry.
I have 100% verification that he has said this (in 2011) to CEOs of large Aust companies that will remain anonymous…
Why is Rudd considered the only agitator in the ALP??? And why does Shorten pretend to be Julia’s best pal ???
Tssk, that, or Abbott has the nerve to front up to the GG and ask her to devolve parliament. And make that public of course.
I thought everyone understood this? I’ve said it before but that was the whole point of it for them to get Rudd out of there before he won the next election as then it would be too hard to knife him.
It’s unfortunate so many people have gotten sucked into all the “he didn’t speak nicely to me, took too long to make decisions etc” stuff. I have no doubt that stuff is true but seriously.
MP @ 78 – Rudd will get the blame for any leaks till the next election whether he is responsible for them or not. Though I’d be surprised if he doesn’t keep working in the background at least a bit.
It does give a 3rd party the perfect opportunity to undermine Gillard though. Rudd gets the blame and they can take over without any suspicion.
I wonder if the the caucus knew what they know now whether they would still have pushed Rudd out?
This whole thing is doing my head in… but I’m trying to reconcile the apparently ‘new’ information that Rudd kept a messy desk and called people names and that’s why he got replaced –
with the reasoning behind the fact that they did not mention his achievements during the 2010 elections.
One of the reasons the campaign was so lack-lustre, and dead in the water, was that no-one could speak of Rudd’s achievements in any depth, and that gave them nothing to talk about. The advantage of being in government was lost.
I thought the fact that Rudd’s achievements were not mentioned was that they were GOOD things, therefore why did they sack him.
And if GOOD things came out of a chaotic government, then surely the most important thing in governing is not a neat and tidy process system, but actually vision and passion.
Ok, I’m over this. As soon as this spill is over, I am giving myself a break from reading about political crap. Surely with Rudd out of the way, (the media tart that he is), there will be a return to nice, quiet politics and people being nice to each other.
And another thing – what were they doing telling the US what was going on well before the coup. That’s my recollection. That seems really dodgy to me.
Sorry – said I wouldn’t add any more but I’ve snuck back to see what people are saying. Good night and good luck.
Exactly right Shingle. It was all revealed in wiki-leaks. They were going to replace Rudd in 2009, yet Crean and Barrie Cassidy’s witch-hunt about Rudd under-mining Gillard is really biting. People are repeating it and it’s becoming folk-lore. Rudd looks defensive when the party was doing the same thing to him. It was included in the 4-corners story as well….
and as we’ve all noticed, all this came to a head when 4-Corners produced a program that portrayed Rudd positively….
then we got the You Tube Swear Video… and the rest is history.
Rudd will always be a target. He makes good copy… love him or hate him, he generates interest. My computer was going into convulsions on the day he resigned from Washington… there were 7,000 reading the same The Age article that I was reading and my computer almost crashed.
There has probably been only one QandA episode, since June 2010 that has NOT mentioned Rudd. I cannot believe the interest in this.
Sam@72. There’s always Mike Kelly. He’s playing a very quiet hand. Perhaps he’s organising the coup.
I like this from Andrew Elder:
“If people get some appreciation that it’s Gillard who came through with what Rudd promised, it would be unfair to dump her in favour of a showboating man who talked and talked and didn’t deliver because he thought it was all about him. If that realisation takes hold, Rudd is finished. ”
Rudd knows he needs to act now, because Gillard’s hard work is going to bear fruit soon and then he’ll definitely be finished.
Gillard’s hard work is going to bear fruit soon
People have been saying this since she assumed the leadership…
I hope that right.
If it isnt, the ALP should move to Rudd.
This is all very simple. I tell you who I think are the showboaters: Swan, Crean and the other sooks who ‘wont serve’ under the person who delivered us from Howard.
Er, guys – dont make us, the public, choose between you lot, and him. Youll lose.
Chris @ 55 – oh dear – what searches would cause google personalisation to bring up “rude person” I wonder! : 0
It wouldn’t surprise me – if the ballot is confidential – if there was rather a gap between the (understandably frightened of retribution by those rather vicious cabinet ministers) number of Gillard promisers and the actual votes tomorrow.
Garrett would be no loss, for sure. But Roxon is no showboater and she’s another “will not serve” person.
That’s right Fine. Gillard has been looking stronger than ever this week. She’ll come out of this stronger, because those who felt sorry for Rudd’s knifing, will now feel that he’s had his chance.
It’s easy to forget that all governments struggle in their first term, and had Rudd won his second election, the entire party would have grown in confidence and legitimacy. Everything that Gillard is bringing to fruition could have easily been done during Rudd’s second term. (with or without his chaotic office).
As well as Martin Ferguson, Twiggy Forrest also claimed that Rudd and others had finalised a newer version of the RSPT (mining tax) the night before the coup.
Julia will grow in the eyes of the electorate, as she claims credit for taking over the work that Rudd would have done if he was still there.
This will be good for her… and it’s always good to have someone to blame….
Autocomplete failure? Hmmm
If Abbott was acting in the best interests of his party he’d resign.
Good chance Turnbull could form govt this week. Seriously.
Crean a showboater? Crean? He’s many things but I remember him as opposition leader and showboater he is not!
It’s all over red rover. Now let’s see if the two camps can come together as seamlessly as the evening news tells us that Kevin and his supporting Ministers have said they will.
V. true Lefty E.
I am just so impressed that the likes of Keane and others have set another special test for Julia Gillard that no male, like Tony Abbott, had to achieve.
He wins by one and it’s all over ;she needs to make sure that Rudd gets no more than 30 or it’s all over for her and then some.
This really is quite ugly.
Joe, you’re retconning somewhat there, there was very much a question over Abbott for many months following, but I would add that a) he was in opposition not government, and b) he was successful against Labor afterwards. If Gillard achieves the kind of turn-around her proponents are insisting she will, I would expect these questions to mute down to dull rumblings. Of course, it won’t happen, no matter who wins the challenge more’s the pity.
Fran Barlow, correcting people’s posts is kinda crass. I know of no other online community where this occurs, and whilst I accept it is well intentioned, the frequency with which it used to occur made me feel less inclined to post here.
Likewise, projecting feelings of defensiveness, embarrassment and feelings of guilt on to someone who has said, “I’ve changed my mind” was bizarre and unjustified.
Bruce Hawker has rather overplayed his hand. It’s “unconscionable” that Gillard put her hat in the ring? How dare that woman not just roll over and let a man have his job back.
Yes. It’s weird. Abbott wins by one and there’s nary a word spoken. I suspect that no matter how large a margin Gillard wins by, there’ll be some in the commentariat who’ll be saying that it’s only a matter of time…
And does Rudd have to do yet another photo-op at Church? It was so predictable.
faustusnotes@101. Also just to mention that adrian did write that it was “pompous” and “condescending”. Yet, that doesn’t seem to matter to Fran.
Oops! I meant furiousbalancing. My heartfelt apologies.
Oh absolutely necessary, in this way he highlights that his opponent is “atheist, childless” and most bizarrely, “communist”.
Keane has done so before a vote has even been made.
I should add that commenters might take a lead and bury the hatchet as well. Though I suppose the Labor Party re-unifying doesn’t necessarily include a lot of the commenters on this post.
I dont think thats the case, but if If its 30+ votes Joe2 , it’d be true.
And frankly, that looks likely.
Post June 23 2010, there’s just no wishing all this back into the can, folks.
Patrick @ 100, writing about Tony Abbott, said:
If he was successful, then why is he still the Opposition Leader?
It doesnt cover me, but Ill be happy to move on from sheer boredom with “rudd= TEH disloyalty” and “Gillard = TEH better management” irrelevances that have dominated this debate.
After a few hours deliberation post-result, of course.
Fran @94
Would you accept “Digivolve”?
Like ” Labgreenindymon” evolves into ” Libnatmon”
“I dont think thats the case, but if If its 30+ votes Joe2 , it’d be true.”
Since you and Bernard, now have truth on your side, leftye, guess there is no much point challenging any of your opinions.
“Oh absolutely necessary, in this way he highlights that his opponent is “atheist, childless” and most bizarrely, “communist”.”
Unsubtantiated, devoid of context, he said she said pub gossip should count for what in this debate, su?
A new low in mudslinging?
It’s a debate in which people have different sides Joe2.
There’s no need for churlishness.
‘atheist, communist’
I assumed that was a compliment!
When was Gillard ever a Communist anyway?
Should count for slightly more than the descriptions on this thread of various members of the ALP as unhinged and the crack about the length of Kate Ellis’ skirts, I think Nick, seeing as it was a public report of an actual conversation, even if there is only one account. Your mileage varies, clearly. No one batted an eye at the gendered insult against Gillard as an ALP thug’s “woman”, but I represent a new low in discourse?
From the ABC live blog:
When Kevin Rudd left church this morning in Brisbane, he was asked whether he gave any thought to how the current leadership battle would be affecting Julia Gillard personally, given his own experience in 2010.
“Everyone in politics is human. Whatever our political differences are it affects your family and your loved ones around you. We always make decisions as a family and we support each other when it gets a bit rough. Just like Julia, I mean, she’s got people very close to her. When it gets tough and rough we’re all human beings and we rely upon the support of those who are closest to us.”
I think that’s an interesting response from someone as they leave church, when there is a meme out there that he described the PM as “childless, atheist, ex-communist”.
LeftyE – Rudd camp seems to have put the threshold at 30, Gillard camp at 40 so I’d guess his support is somewhere in between. Rudd supporters have already complained that having the ballot on Monday rather than later in the week was unfair, so I think it’s pretty clear that if they get more than 30 they won’t give up, no matter what is promised. Fun time ahead for the press looking for leaks!
GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVote
#Newspoll 2 Party Preferred: ALP 47 (+2) L/NP 53 (-2)
So, apparently ripping yourselves to shreds doesn’t do you any harm electorally. Who knew?
Oh yes, su gendered insults here are getting more frequent. But, as akn has advised sexism is natural and we shouldn’t be worried about it.
I don’t understand why Rudd vowed that this would be his last tilt at the leadership.
Unless he meant it.
I assume It just means he wont launch a challenge, but could be drafted.
Something for everyone in this poll
“GhostWhoVotes relates …the Coalition’s two-party preferred lead has narrowed since a fortnight ago from 55-45 to 53-47, with Labor’s primary vote up three to 35 per cent (their best result since March last year) and the Coalition’s down one to 45 per cent. However, the script has been followed with respect to Julia Gillard, whose approval rating has plunged six points to 26 per cent. However, Tony Abbott too has taken a bit hit, down five points on approval to a new low of 31 per cent and up five on disapproval to 57 per cent. Preferred prime minister is little changed, with Abbott’s lead down from 40-37 to 38-36.”
Katz, given time Kevin sniffs the wind fairly well.
I’m just not sure why, when all and sundry here have let rip with the banal sarcasm on more than one occasion, I shouldn’t join in, after all as Rudd says, “we are only human”, even us atheists.
Possum’s take:
“Possum Comitatus @Pollytics
·More
Newspoll – Roflol. Abbott’s approval down 5, Gillard’s down 6 and ALPs vote improves as some people think Rudd will be back o_O”
To be fair, it should be noted Possum has been quite pro-Rudd throughout
I remember reading that Kate Ellis was somewhat involved in the 2010 coup, apparently she was counting numbers with Shorten. Since then she has been Team Gillard.
So I find it hard to believe Rudd would be insulting Gillard, anywhere in the vicinity of Kate Ellis or other Gillard supporters, esp as Ellis is also childless.
Of course the fact that Ellis has lawyers standing by ready to sign ‘stat decs’ declaring that Rudd insulted Gillard…. well… a story like that has gotta be true, right ??? Especially because pub stories are always true.
Mike Rann was also at that pub, and he denies the story….mmmm..
No, su. Kate Ellis running to the Murdoch rags with tittle-tattle is what represents a new low in the discourse.
Back to first principles: Rudd, as leader, won an election. Gillard, as leader didn’t. Of course you’d go with Julia … if you’re wedded to heroic failure.
Well if we are going to demand irrefutable proof of everything we are going to have to rule off limits about 90% of the last three threadsworth of stoushing. The blog owners might appreciate that, but I, who have to outsource my daily requirement for pointless bickering to the net, will be somewhat bereft.
At least she is out there and up front with her story, rather than providing it to journalists under cover of anonymity and backgrounding.
And “tittle-tattle” is what girls do, isn’t it Nick? So very nice of you to throw in a little bit of sexism while demeaning her.
The meek shall inherite the world.
There’s good article in the OZ where Martin Ferguson is confirming that Rudd was on the cusp of finalising the Mining Tax, the night before the coup. Rudd is complaining that Swan distanced himself from the tax when it got too hard.
Swan is hitting back that only he and Gillard could deliver the mining tax, and they did a great job finishing something that Rudd started and never finished.
The Henry Report came out on the 1st of May, and Rudd was deposed on June 23. Didn’t exactly give him alot of time.
For how much longer will Swan continue to fly under the radar??
Well email her, Nick, and let her know how you feel. I don’t need to justify a sarcastic quip that I thought Fine would appreciate to you do I?
I do not see any sign that he is MP.
http://www.news.com.au/national/wayne-swan-is-euromoneys-finance-minister-of-the-year/story-e6frfkvr-1226142199651
furious balancing said:
I also correct my own. I hate untidiness. In Jumpy’s case though, I suspect that is was an autocomplete fail, so I was rather solidarising with good humour, rather than taking a swing.
Adrian’s response — which was to attack me in order to defend his change of mind — is textbook defensive conduct. I see this kind of behavious most days of the week from staff and students. The silly thing was that my post was aimed at having Adrian reflect on how he’d come to change his mind. Moments like that are opportunities to learn about yourself. You will recall that my initial citation contained no direct observation about this apparent contradiction.
It’s possible for this blog to operate merely as a place where people can vent what they feel. There’s nothing wrong with venting. Yet I believe it would be good in between venting for people to take opportunities to reflect on what they’ve claimed in a systematic way. Adrian can choose not to do that, but if you re-examine what I said, I did map out an approach to conducting such an exercise.
I’m a strong believer in taking every opportunity to learn, and encouraging others to do so. This reflects my respect for my fellow humans and their possibility. I neither felt nor feel any ill-will towards Adrian. His feelings of course are a matter for him.
Jeez, maybe the ALP could choose a leader based on genital size alone? Like the good ole Hawkie days? We’d more than likely still have JG as PM (ducks)
Katz @ 122 – Keating said pretty much the same thing too – “I had only one shot in the locker and I fired it”. But he managed to find another a few months down the line. It’s what challengers are expected to say for party unity.
Moments like that are opportunities to learn about yourself
Hate to pile on, but this is still kinda patronising Fran, as are the grammar corrections I know you love. But still.
Fran, let me assist you in your endless quest for learning and improvement.
Firstly, I did not attack you to defend my ‘change of mind’ because I had nothing to defend. I changed my mind and don’t have to explain it to you or anyone else. I would have explained further had your post not been so bizarrely and unnecessarily patronising.
Secondly, as a teacher you should realise that I wasn’t attacking you personally, merely your behaviour as shown in the original strange post, and evidenced above.
I’ll leave it at that because I’m sure this is completely boring for other readers.
Mp – I haven’t got the link, but Martin ferguson on ten was quite magnificent in a more in sorrow than anger kind of way. My respect for him skyrocketed
Rudd will always be able to say circumstances have changed, particularly if another challenger emerges
Xenophon gets QOTD
On the bright side if there’s a reshuffle hopefully Conroy will get promoted up and out of IT & Communications and Gillard can replace him with someone at least half competent. Kate Lundy would be a huge improvement!
Jacques de Molay
“I thought everyone understood this? I’ve said it before but that was the whole point of it for them to get Rudd out of there before he won the next election as then it would be too hard to knife him. ”
Curiously I was reading in the Australian about how the conspirators jokingly referred to themselves as the “Knights Templars”
Fortunately the far-sighted Rudd has his insurance policy – always appointing Coalition politicians to plumb diplomatic positions – presumably on the assumption that when it was time for Rudd to get his own ticket onwards, a Coalition government would be in power.
Once Rudd decides he has no future in the Labor party you might find that his objections to the ravages of Tony Abbott might diminish considerably. In fact, it would definitely in his interest to see Labor defeated.
Jacques de Molay, thou art avenged…
Grey: did you learn that sort of self interested thinking in a private school?
Now it’s time to kick Conroy ffs. Chris, if it wasn’t for him the NBN would have stalled long ago. It really is quite extraordinary how vindictive some people have become towards perfectly competent ministers who have dared to speak out against the now proven manipulator Rudd.
Joe2, a politician who’s a manipulator? Who would have thought it?
And a proven one at that!
Whatevs, su. If you want to believe Rudd said that, and he meant it, and that’s what he thinks about Gillard. Go for it. Make all the sarcastic asides you want.
“tittle-tattle” is what girls do, isn’t it Nick? So very nice of you to throw in a little bit of sexism while demeaning her.”
I’ve got a nice jumper you can shove those projections up, joe2. Tittle-tattle is what schoolchildren do.
Okay, Fran. Let me pre-empt something. I find this correcting of other people’s text ill-mannered and condescending. If you feel the need to do so to one mine; please don’t. Stick to correcting yours, unless asked to do otherwise. We are not your students. You are not our teacher.
If someone tells you that an action that you take in relation to them is “bizarrely and unnecessarily patronising”, then don’t do it.
joe2 – have a read of this:
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/02/21/3435975.htm
If Conroy wasn’t so incompetent the NBN would be a lot more popular.
As for his continued support for the internet filter, I’ll happily give him a kick any opportunity I have. Its one of those rare situations where the libs have a better policy than the ALP (eg voluntary end user filtering)
Is the best you can do, adrian?
You cannot be serious. It is hugely popular despite the massive campaign against it by Newslimited which Conroy has managed to take on very convincingly.
At 10.00 on a Sunday night, yes joe2.
joe2 – have a read of the article I linked to. Its by a reporter who strongly supports and defends the NBN.
Peter Garrett has thrown support behind Gillard saying he could never work with Rudd again….begin demolition now. Good night all.
Garrett is surely the most useless one of the lot!
Joe2 @ 135. I take your point on Swan. I think this country has been very well-served with our treasury and finance people over the years, no matter which side of politics has been in power.
I guess my problem is with Swan. Someone like Lindsay Tanner understood finance and the economy, and could explain it effortlessly when interviewed, in a way that people understood.
He seemed to have a couple of points running at the same time which he would then blend together nicely to reach a logical conclusion, taking the listener/viewer with him. And he didn’t crush drinking glasses in his bare hands with nervousness when he spoke.
I’ve said it before, but Swan should be selling our economy to us better. We should be spending more, consumer confidence should be higher. I guess those awards get given for results and not personality.
I also think he’s been the most gutteral and disgusting in all this, and as usual he gets away with it. Long live the AWU.
Fine said:
Now that Adrian has asserted that, I’ll certainly give him a wide berth. While I remain unpersuaded that the remarks can be fairly characterised in such terms, I never sought to upset him and if that is what he hears, what can I do but accommodate his wishes?
As to your posts, I’ll also keep your remark in mind.
I dont know how others feel, but Albanese’s statement that deposing Rudd wasnt right, and wasnt good, and should be reversed (even if it isn’t) has actually made me feel less bitter about it all.
Whatever happens tomorrow, I hope thats a wider feeling on the left of centre.
Thank you, Fran.
Please people, I’m meant to be the shit-stirring troll here. Stop horning in on my racket.
Newspoll Preferred ALP Leader: Gillard 28 Rudd 53
Kate Ellis (Ms David Penberthy) is from the SDA and owes her political career to Don ‘The Godfather’ Farrell (one of the faceless men).
Which is why Gillard will probably win tomorrow around 70-30!
Gillard 64% disappoval rating.
Thats very, very bad, and wont help her tomorrow.
Hello again all. Let’s settle down to some new opinions in the last days of LP as we know it, shall we?
I’ve been wondering a lot about the basic impetus of not just this blog’s two main creators, but also of someone like Anthony Albanese, an ALP Leftwinger who has been able to go on the record in support of Rudd returning, despite being friends with the PM. (No disrespect to Mark or Kim; I’m about to explain why I empathise with their deliberative silence on this.)
Why would any Left ALP tribal people come out against Gillard and for Rudd? What do they see? Well, I think they see something that Green- and ALP-sceptic-Leftwingers can’t see. I think they see the beginning of what, for want of a better expression, I will call a declinist tendency under Gillard.
They reckon that Julia Gillard has made an egregious deal with the factional devil that will weaken the Labor Movement in general, and in particular will result in more vulnerability for the ALP Left from encroaching Green ideas and organisation.
Before you get all riled up, anyone responding to this observation should ask themselves these questions: do I care anything for the institution of the ALP? Am I a Green? Am I the sort of person who believes that the Labor Movement is extant, or that it no longer exists? And even if I have been disappointed by the actions of the last ten, twenty, forty years, isn’t it possible for me to at least honestly position myself, somewhere, anywhere, in relation to this body of politics? In. Or. Out. Of. LABOR.
If one is honest one has to admit these criteria can actually be answered in quite simple yes or no terms.
Why stand up for Rudd? If I were an actual ALP Leftwing participant (and I’m not) I’d be for Rudd because I see him as a better sheperd of broadchurch partisan Laborism. A partisan Laborism that desires to maintain a relevant Left within it. I would take sustenance from the fact that Faulkner and Albanese and Carr and Ferguson are on broad with this.
On the other hand, I would be against Gillard because I was fearful, I was convinced, that she was too close to a system of factionalism that is liable to meet any soon-to-be crisis by converting en masse to something that broadchurch partisan Labor currently isn’t in this country. Once again, for want of a better expression; pure Blairism. That’s the best shorthand for the very real consequences of Gillard declinism as I see it that I can express in words. The other risk of this declinism–losing more Left territory, electoral and human, to the Greens.
Indeed, that may be more than just a ‘risk’. It may be a necessary dynamic to this Blairite spectre. A new post-ideological, anti-broadchurch leadership willfully allowing the Greens to grow, in the hope that it becomes something that can be addressed every now and then as a defacto, extra-party substitute for a freshly deceased ALP Leftwing.
Such a politics would do away altogether with the need to have the system of ideological factions inherent within partisan Labor of late. And seeing as Julia Gillard’s personal style of leadership has demonstrated that it’s possible to mobilise the Greens for both legislative and opinion-making ends, there’s more.
Comments here prove that, to a certain extent, ad hoc Green support can even shore up the very occupant of the partisan Labor leadership itself.
Rudd as a Queensland reformer of the Fitzgerald era doesn’t see the need for this kind of realignment. If I were this Labor Left person in this pro-restoration camp of his I’d argue that he wouldn’t have a bar of this declinist project. Not becuase he’s pure of heart, as he isnt. But because, thanks to provincialism, his political DNA is suffused with ‘we must hang together, or else we will all hang separately.’ He is from the biggest state which doesn’t return safe ALP members to the HoR, after all.
It would never occur to him to try and drag the party across the spectrum at this point, deliberately leaving one section of it behind to wither. Yet that seems to be exactly the option this PM’s factional alliance wants to keep in reserve. And if I were an activist Leftwing partisan Laborite I’d view that as declinism. Coming from the language of the traditional Labor Movement that would be a surprisingly kind epithet.
I guess the public are going totally confused when they compare Newspoll type results and expectations with the reality of Labor’s ‘ballot’.
Labor’s polls up at the same time as Gillard’s approval rating drops 7% meaning people are assuming Rudd’s return is a given.
My, won’t they all be very with Labor all over again. Amazing what these ‘faceless’ factional thugs can do in the protection of their power.
Unfortunately an election route probably won’t remove them.
A new party might put the cat among these pigeons though. Starting to look on the cards if they deny Rudd and his supporters at the next challenge which is inevitable now.
Nichws @ 166, I can’t speak for Kim, but Mark has been doing a field trip on this project, based in Dalby, last week. He’s been working about 14 hours a day, and I understand internet speeds there are painful. Bring on the NBN!
Personally I’ve decided not to write any more about the subject until something actually happens.
Nice ideas Nickws, but with respect you overthought this. I was out in the garden, because the plants need my attention more than the ALP does. The ALP caucus has made it clear they do not intend to listen to public opinion on this issue, so might as well save one’s breath.
This site is giant purple water-cooler. And, as Brian says, “until something actually happens”, there’s nothing much to talk about…and if the status quo is reaffirmed this morning, as appears likely, then, technically, nothing will have happened…
With respect, even if Gillard wins this morning, plenty has happened.
The Rudd challenge was a catharsis for ALP insiders, giving them licence to say publicly what they were silent about since the mysterious events of June 2010.
Why should political practitioners, whose professional existence depends on the stern formula (50% + 1) reject a candidate who is undeniably popular with the electorate?
These insiders are remarkably unanimous on this point — the popular candidate, they say, is a venomous, hypocritical, destructive and self-destructive psychopath. They claim to be saving the party and the country from the baleful embrace of this individual and his supporters from their consequences of their own ignorance.
These stated motives are rare enough in Australian political history to be remarkable. Any person interested in Australian politics must be fascinated by the unfolding of this dark drama.
Rudd as psychopath? What, like Hannibal Lecter? Katz, I think you meant sociopath.
Simon Crean’s role in all of this now makes sense. He was after Kevin Rudd’s job. A last lap in his political career travelling the world business class with his missus, no doubt.
Business class? Cabinet ministers go first class.
Simon would make a good FM, but there is no reason now why Stephen Smith shouldn’t be back in the job.
Yes Sam, I did mean sociopath.
Apologies for misspeaking.
I’m just sharing this survey for people to make of it what you will…
http://whatthepeoplewant.net/polls-blog/february-2012/qpeople-powerq-falters.html
Further Nickws comments
The old ALP faction bosses
1. are leading unions that are a declining % of the workforce like CFMEU or AWU ie construction and manufacturing
2. making policy to suit their dogma like head of the Shop Assistants union Joe de Bruin who is anti-abortion and anti-gay. His membership is . . . ?
The workforce is growing with jobs being created in the service sector for
1. teachers
2. aged care workers
3. nurses
4. public service
These are the areas where union membership is growing and the new union membership is tertiary educated women who are as likely to find the policies of The Greens appealling
The fact that its OK for Bill Heffernan’s and Kevin Rudd’s description of Gillard as a childless b…. or c… to be in open circulation demonstrates the widespread misogyny in our society.
Are females only to be valued for the quality of the offspring that they throw. Don’t we have overpopulation on this planet?
Careful, you’re making Rudd sound like Winston Churchill!
Churchill’s wartime government operated brilliantly in the face of national annihilation.
On the other hand, Rudd dealt with the Great Mandarin Mistranslation Crisis in his own inimitable way.
I find it telling that a pattern of abusive behaviour, destructive not only of trust and confidence amongst his peers but of the smooth functioning of government is repeatedly dismissed as trivial (messy desk, hurt feelings) and if a solution is offered it is that everyone else around him has to manage this better and that they are wrong, indeed unhinged, to lift the lid on the enabling secrecy that surrounded this pattern of behaviour.
Where have I heard this before? It is only the usual response to anyone who raises concerns about workplace bullying or intimate partner violence or other forms of abuse. If your organization promotes these people to positions of power, it is not a progressive organization, if attempts to remedy the harm wrought by this kind of behaviour are blocked on the basis that that person is a means to an end, you are not being progressive, if people speak out about abusive behaviour that had been shielded by a culture of complicity and secrecy and you shame them for it, you are not progressive.
Michael Duffy takes the long handle to Rudd.
Yes,su, I’ve been thinking that for some time. However, you’d need to extend that analysis of bullying to include the dominant culture within the whole of the ALP. Bullies only rise where there are supportive institutional cultures.
Well, either that, or we have an ambitious person thwarted by other other ambitious people who are far better connected with power bases called factions. Who have dug in despite the peril they pose to the collective enterprise.
Overall, I tend to think the Rudd challenge has been a good thing: its cleared the air, made Team Gillard tell the truth (its been obvious theyve been fibbing about the reasons for 2010); brought Team Rudd into the open, (where theyve behaved far better than they do behind closed doors), and shown us who should be retired (Swan) and who should rise (Albanese).
Critically, it has also allowed key members – partic Albanese – to effectively issue an apology for the party’s bad and wrong behaviour in rolling Rudd, which I expect will be constructive for the party, and maybe for many of Rudd’s supporters.
Wishing the poison of June 2010 away was always whistling dixie. It had to come to this.
I agree with much of that LE. Let’s hope that one way or the other this can snip the loose threads of June 2010 and allow Alboism to calm the waters.
I don’t think Swan should move on yet. I think he’s been a good Treasurer. But I do think his public comments were dreadfully misjudged and damaging. I’d like to see him step down as Deputy Leader.
Yes, Rudd’s assassins did fib about June 2010.
They were prepared to wear the accusation that they were mining magnates’ stooges in order to cover up the sordid truth that they had helped to promote Captain Queeg to command.
In retrospect this does appear to be eccentric behaviour.
su and joe2 and others, please reflect for a second on the fact that the very people within the Labor party you’re relying on for that pub gossip account of Rudd being a *bully*, are the same who actively lobby to deny women reproductive rights and vote down same-sex marriage in this country.
The Catholic bloody right of the party. Amazing that you don’t see he was both parodying the News Limited line and taking the piss out of their hypocrisy. The kind of thing people do when they’re at the pub and they’ve had a few.
Feel free if you like to list all the progressive measures Ellis achieved in her role as Minister for The Status Of Women, as opposed to paying a year or two of lip service and handing out a bit of small change here and there in order to solve problems that run much, much deeper?
The Gillard support base. Stop the boats. Stop the abortions. Stop the gays.
I’d like to hear Mark amd Kim’s take on all this.
I wonder if the buy the Rudd as sociopath line that so many seem to do on this site.
su @ 180 – as I mentioned in an earlier thread, if parliament was an “ordinary workplace” the employer would be liable to be sued for allowing a culture of bullying and intimidation. And this is in no way restricted to what Rudd has done. But for politicians its business as usual.
Adrian, what makes Mark’s and Kim’s opinion authoritative?
“The Catholic bloody right of the party. Amazing that you don’t see he was both parodying the News Limited line and taking the piss out of their hypocrisy. The kind of thing people do when they’re at the pub and they’ve had a few.”
I’d love to think it was a take-down of the SDA, but I reckon it was more like his job application. He’s still doing it. Hence the dog-whistles about her lack of a family outside his church.
Again, pity the public couldnt care less about Rudd’s cwuelties, and this disconnect between caucus and the public will lead to electoral obilivion.
Aside from that, its all good.
Fortunately, a full third of caucus is wise to this already, and extraordinarily (given Rudd’s beastliness and general sociopathy) are voting for him today. That number will grow by early 2013.
Sadly, +26 / -64 approval rating is not sustainable for a leader. She will have to go if this doestn turn around. the next one may be between Rudd and Shorten.
Nick, you know very well that the accounts from within the Labor party have only just emerged but they are backed up by accounts from within the public service, within the Diplomatic community and within Canberra circles. What I am arguing against, is the depoliticization of this aspect of what has occurred. Why do you think we need laws to protect whistleblowers (that are ineffectual) and organisations like wikileaks? Because how power is actually exercised differs wildly from the legal and policy frameworks that define how an organisation apparently functions. When power was momentarily wrested from the factions it wasn’t devolved, it was concentrated in the person of the PM. Rudd represents an intensification of the problems of factional powerbrokers, not a solution. Every self-confessed saviour who has ridden in on his white horse to wrest power from corrupt systems and assumed the mantle himself(only temporarily, of course), has turned out to be a tyrant, not an enlightened democrat. Why do we keep falling for the same saviour narrative?
The ALP has been discussing the decreasing relevance of the factional system for a long time, I would put faith in the movement before I would put faith in this one individual.
Kevin has his flaws but he isn’t a sociopath!
Of course he isnt LO – he has the normal personaility profile of a political leader. He’s doing what anyone in his position would do.
And he’ll only lose because factional discipline and JGs internal popularity currently prevail over electoral wisdom.
It wont forever.
Nothing, I’m just interested, that’s all. Is that OK with you?
Testing the sin bin.
Most overt control freaks are not sociopaths – sociopaths play far more insidious dominance games than that. Most politicians strike me as arrogant and somewhat bull-headed, the most effective/substantive learn to restrain the excesses of these traits within themselves in order to balance the needs of climbing the greasy pole with the logistics of getting some useful things done. KRudd seems to be not especially more arrogant/bull-headed than most other pollies, but perhaps not so good at restraining those tendencies when it really matters as some others are.
I wonder whether some of the people who have sounded off about him ahead of this caucus vote would have actually loved to say these things last time around, but he robbed them of the opportunity when he stepped down without standing for the vote.
Point of clarification LO. I did not allege that Rudd is a sociopath. I merely noted that many of Rudd’s colleagues said or implied that Rudd is a sociopath.
I don’t know whether or not Rudd is a sociopath.
Such public character assessments are rare. As I said above, this feature makes this challenge unusual.
I don’t think that KR should be demonised, but I don’t agree that he is just normal and the same as every other leader either. Nor do I think that the question of the stability and workability of the executive is inconsequential.
Furthermore I find the unipolar explanations “this is all about” somewhat unsatisfactory.
FWIW (which is not much) I do accept the argument that Rudd is a particularly dysfunctional leader on the basis that all of the stories we hear are confirmed to me by someone who worked close to (but not with) him and whose judgement I trust more than most. I don’t of course expect that quality of evidence to convince anyone else (although LE will perhaps know what I mean).
Is that OK with you?
What are you so testy about? Is it because your boy is going down?
Such public character assessments are rare.
What? In the Labor Party. You obviously don’t reside in NSW, Katz.
How will Labor silence Rudd once and for all once the vote is taken.
Rudd is a man who doesn’t give up and consistently undermines everyone, out of spite his leaking nearly cost the Australian people the opportunity to continue to be governed by the Labor Party in 2010, rather than return to the conservative government of Abbott
Yeah, I dont dispute he was a testy customer to work under – being elected in a presidential style campaign (which it now is) against the longest serving Tory since Menzies might do that to someone.
What I find unconvincing is the assertion that someone like him cant adjust to circumstances. There’s also the problem that more than a few Minsiters who served under him are voting for him today, and broadly dispute the account.
this suggests other motives on both sides are being deployed in both the character assassination and defence, and the truth lies somewhere in between.
In which case…
su, you are correct to isolate bullying as a key factor in Rudd’s demise. However, the analysis needs to be applied to the entire ALP as an institution because bullies don’t rise without the necessary institutional conditions. That is, a culture in which there is a trade off between the bully’s capacity to deliver results and his or her methods. The theory is that the bully is tolerated by the institution so long as s/he delivers results. My own experience working in child protection is that bullying can become the raison d’etre for the institution. Bullies are never outed when the purpose of the institution is *bullying* itself.
In so far as a culture of bullying appears to be widespread I’d suggest that it is linked to the creation, by neoliberalism, of a general culture in which personality disordered individuals flourish. We are in the intersubjective epoch of the sociopath and the PD.
So I don’t think Rudd is Robinson Crusoe here.
How will Labor silence Rudd once and for all once the vote is taken.
Easy peasy, says Michael Duffy.
I’d be happy to send Rudd and Gillard both to Macquarie Island, for the term of their naturals.
out of spite his leaking nearly cost the Australian people the opportunity to continue to be governed by the Labor Party in 2010
If you think the leaks were the biggest problem with Labor’s campaign in that election, I don’t know what to tell you. I would also suggest that polls before, during and subsequent to the election allude to Rudd’s ouster playing a far larger role than anything else that subsequently happened.
By any measure this is an insult to our intelligence. The Gillard support base includes people from left and right, people whose politics I think are dodgy and others I have a great deal of admiration for, and amazing that Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek have suddenly become invisible again.
73-29 Gillard according to Coorey tweet.
It’s over.
Gillard 73, Rudd 29.
73….29……?
Rudd managed to lose votes after he arrived back in the country.
Take a bow, Bruce Hawker, campaign manager extraordinaire.
I don’t think Rudd’s foibles emerged as a result of the 2007 campaign. That’s a particularly unconvincing story.
Clearly Rudd can change. Whether he has, or will, or more importantly his colleagues think he will is another matter. Firing off press conferences at 1am doesn’t exactly inspire confidence on that front.
Crean had that figure, I think.
Well, that settles the matter – for now.
But 29 is more than enough to return to in 2013, if the numbers dont improve.
Can’t help but feel that Labor is the biggest loser out of this.
Nothing has been fixed and in fact the factional warlords just protected themselves and are back in full control.
And yes Gillard can chase her Pacific solution, dog-whistling and so forth again.
Her personal approval ratings are abysmal and it will be interesting to see the poll aftermath of this latest decision to know when the next challenge will be required.
Too much bitterness and sniping about all this. In June 2010 the caucus elected to replace Rudd with Gillard. As it was fully entitled to do. That is after all how leaders are chosen. Personally, I was disappointed – I liked Rudd and I was grateful for his role in removing the rodent. But whatever. I vote for the ALP, but the caucus chooses the leader. Since then I think Gillard’s done well in a difficult situation and for me there were signs that it was starting to reconnect with voters. Nonetheless, Rudd was fully entitled to challenge. He did. He lost. Nothing to see here, Labor supporters, let’s move along.
P.S. thanks to Joe2 to sticking up for Swan. I’ve always found him to be one of the few in politics prepared to talk to us as if we were adults. That capacity to ‘cut through to voters’ which Swan is criticised for not having seems to me to be the capacity to dumb down issues to trite slogans, which fails to recognise the complexity of the matters being discussed.
All that ballyhoo and we get the status quo!
Can we talk about something else now?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeease?
Highest vote for an ALP leader ever. EVA. So now will the unhappy not keep briefing the press at every opportunity?
It’s not about lights on hills, its about demonstrating ability to govern. Which Rudd did not and can not do. Particularly in the new future of negotating minority government.
+2!!
It’s actually 74/29 because Michelle Rowlands couldn’t have a vote and she would have supported Gillard.
That was in reply to Mercurius!
Well the nature of the Gillard campaign against Rudd was bullying in overdrive, against Rudd and anybody in the party that thought they might vote for him. The extreme nature of the attacks would have made it clear to many a backbencher that there would be zero tolerance of not being obedient. So Gillard’s tactics simply affirm the current culture within Labor.
Can’t help but feel that Labor is the biggest loser out of this.
D’ya think?
Please, let us not start this nonsense all over again.
Lyndal Curtis interviews Simpkin. Where is the chuck bucket?
Ruddster has had his weekend in the spotlight. Photos with Therese Rein at church. They even got to cuddle a baby in the entrance way.
Puke.
Apparently there’s a recount: “did he really only get that few..??”.
Record’s been corrected 71-31 Gillard.
Oh dear, this LP thread is going to going to turn into a Pollbludger type. Can we leave the fanboysim, cheerleading and flag waving back there?
It appears not, Thomas Paine.
I think it’s remarkable that a sociopath, control freak, meglomaniac, all round dysfunctional person got 31 votes.
Now what does that say about the current ALP?
Can we leave the fanboysim, cheerleading and flag waving back there?
Rudd will have to resign. At least it will be a better look than losing government if Thomson is arrested. The police raid on the union newsletter people snuck in on a busy news week
Matters related to Thomson and the HSU are moving to a head quite quickly. Fair Work Australia may take four years to investigate, but the NSW Police are unlikely to do so.
Probably a good result for the ALP short and long term: Gillard’s win is solid at 71, but at 31, there’s a solid base for them to move to Rudd if they need to in early 2013.
So, there it ends, or not. Labor now has to find a way to get back to governing again after spilling its entrails for a week. The media will now run with the “not fit to govern” meme for the next year. Every bad poll will be filtered through either the vote just taken or spills yet to come. Rudd is unlikely to go quietly and his core supporters even less so. Incredibly sad, the whole ting and it is going to be an ugly few years.
Not really. A similar, but far more dangerous person owns the Newspoll organisation that collects the data on which most of those people have based their decision. And has played a big part in keeping the Rudd populist dream alive for his own agenda.
LE – Rudd is finished. The party can’t go back to him after what just happened. The 31 is more of a platform for a third person to emerge at some stage. I hope it is after the next election but who knows after this week.
If the government starts ‘moving forward’ from here there won’t be a thought of replacing Gillard. If they keep going backward then I don’t think anyone has a hope and a third party pro-furniture candidate is more likely. I hate to have to agree with Latham but to think that Rudd can lift his numbers in a second challenge by 21, from a starting point of 31, is just not realistic.
Incredibly sad, the whole ting and it is going to be an ugly few years.
I sadly, and wholeheartedly agree. What a stupid waste.
We’ll see LO. Polls may heavily on such certainties. Could be a 3rd party, yes. Id be surprised in JG lead the party to the 2013 election.
Nonetheless, Im glad this result keep the minority parliament as is. Expect quite a few voted with that in mind, rather than 2013.
Now that the recount has been done, presumably Caucus will vote to authorise Gillard handing over Govt to Abbott and the Libs on the floor of the House immediately. Who care if 31 Labor voters, the Greens and the Indies don’t want it. I mean, why waste money on an election?
Is anyone else uninspired by the inane questions from journalists? Someone asked who was sitting next to Kevin Rudd… and they were all itching to make something over whether there was a re-count or not.
What I want to know and no-one asked was: Was it a secret ballot?? Did they have to put their name on the ballot sheet etc etc.
I don’t give a rat’s about Annabel Crabb’s obsession with the length of Rudd’s speech.
LO @237:
I tend to agree. The question is how many of the 31 are likely to support that third person if it’s Bill Shorten, given his role in the events of the last 20 months.
@233. I forgot about Thomson. With that and now the ALP dysfunction what would it take to get the independents to knock on Turnbull’s door? Stuff Abbott. Stuff Gillard.
I know, I know. Stability and all that. But a man can dream can’t he?
“Nick, you know very well that the accounts from within the Labor party have only just emerged but they are backed up by accounts from within the public service”
su, I don’t deny those accounts and or wish to dismiss them. I am interested for the moment in the people who wish to redeploy hyperbolised versions of the themes of those accounts in order to further their own interests. I see this very much as evidence of that.
“Every self-confessed saviour who has ridden in on his white horse to wrest power from corrupt systems and assumed the mantle himself (only temporarily, of course), has turned out to be a tyrant, not an enlightened democrat.”
A very similar thing can be argued of Gillard, though, in both cases, I’d object to the use of the word ‘tyrant’…easy to slip into that hyperbole speak, isn’t it…apparently he’s been on a ‘psychotic rampage’ according to some MPs and Ministers.
“By any measure this is an insult to our intelligence. The Gillard support base includes people from left and right”
I never asserted it didn’t. Many people have many motives. Subtract the handful of MPs you admire and respect from both sides, and do the numbers (admittedly, not something I have done yet either).
I think it’s remarkable that a sociopath, control freak, meglomaniac, all round dysfunctional person got 31 votes.
Another way to look at it is the person who is a mile in front in Newspoll only got 31 votes.
The caucus must be either suicidal or they know something about the man that the voters don’t.
Decisive yes, largest ever, yes. But its also the smallest margin ever for a first term PM.
I guess LO is right, and no doubt better informed than me, Rudd’s tilt may be done – but I tend to think the parlous polls tend to place us in new territory where precedent doesnt count as much.
Interestingly, Rudd apparently has said he will support Gillard against any 3rd candidate.
@372 on the last thread
“I find it extraordinary that the same story … as to why it was necessary to remove Rudd from power is dismissed as fiction”
I’d say that’s because you’re missing the point. I for one haven’t dismissed the premise, although there hasn’t been a really convincing body of evidence put forward just heresay and anecdote. The main problem, and one that you repeatedly ignore, is that the ALP was incapable of coming with a solution other than the one that has seen them descend into unprecedented level of chaos and sink much further in the polls than they were pre-Gillard. Can you please lay of the coy, faux-outrage?
So it looks like the next leader is going to be either Stephen Smith (decent bloke with great hair) or Bill Shorten (ex-union with not so good hair). After rejecting Rudd a second time they will be even more dogmatic about it a third. It’s anyone but Rudd now.
A decisive vote in support of the PM. Since the campaigning has been going on for months, a carefully considered verdict also.
the smallest margin ever for a first term PM.
How many first term PMs have been challenged before this?
Well, thats my point Sam
So it looks like the next leader is going to be either Stephen Smith (decent bloke with great hair) or Bill Shorten (ex-union with not so good hair).
Or Greg Combet, decent bloke with excellent retro glasses.
SAM – I forgot about Combet’s hair.
hahahahaha! that bloody woman just keeps winning eh? 71:31 put that in your pipe and smoke it! Not only that Newspoll 53:47 getting closer!
Rudd better really had start to support rather than destabilise his magnificent leader!
I really admire Julia Gillard! Courage, determination and intelligence! I hope and think she will be PM for another 2-3 terms.
So we are done with this ‘woman leader’ experiment then, back to blokes?
Well, technically I’d argue that Gillard is in her second term as PM, although the first term was pretty short.
Yes, Mindy, she shows no sign of a good poll.
This gives Gillard the opportunity to conduct a real clean out of the ministry, as opposed to the gutless reshuffle she did in December.
This does not mean recrimination against the Rudd supporters (well, not all of them) but it will be an opportunity to get rid of useless dead wood like Kim Carr.
So we are done with this ‘woman leader’ experiment then, back to blokes?
Not at all. Bring on Kate Ellis.
Sam @ 258 – she is still constrained in what she can do – remember, it just takes one resignation from parliament (medical grounds would be a graceful way to exit for someone) and she’s in big trouble.
It really is pathetic. Gillard wins decisively and not only the predictable discussion, here, but Aunty runs straight to this kind of talk about the male set to take her job.
Well the views of serving cabinet ministers, (Swann, Roxon et al), senior public servants and advisors are less anecdote I would have thought, than first hand experience, which they appear to be wanting to share with the electorate.
Rudd now has the vote he refused to have in June 2010.
The result allows every-one to see what his colleagues thought then, and still believe.
I don’t believe the result is mere ‘anecdote’.
Sure thing – in the sense that Brutus was “right behind” Caesar.
Thomas Paine @ 223: exactly. Which is why young Greens, young eco-activists and social justice activists steer well clear of the ALP leaving, as a friend of mine who attended last year’s conference commented, mainly ‘short men with short forearms in charge’. In other words, unprepossessing men.
Not if they clearly do not have said medical grounds
Chris 260, she’s in diabolical trouble now.
Her only hope – and it is the longest of long shots, admittedly, but there is no other option – is throw away all caution and take some huge risks.
The status quo is going to deliver a landslide defeat or Shorten in the Lodge. She might as well go all-in.
SAM – Totally agree. But it’s not in her. At heart, she’s a retail politician. But even if she wasn’t the factions wouldn’t let her go for broke. Look at the pokies fix.
Rudd is now going to return to the back bench and be as quiet as a church mouse (it’s easily the smartest play). I also think he will stand at the next election (I kid you not) because he will see himself as the reformer the party needs after that debacle.
One of my sons sent me an SMS a while ago:
“Well, Rudd got flogged. Now the important work of speculating about leadership tensions between Gillard and Shorten can begin.”
Massively funny that Poll Bludger has gone down and the Gillardites can’t post comments
the factions wouldn’t let her go for broke
Maybe. But not going for broke = certain defeat, NSW style. Even the dumbest faction knucklehead must realise that.
Its actually a bit piss-poor that Crikey’s servers have gone down. I move a spill!
Quite a few. Australia has had 27 prime ministers serving during 32 different periods. Eleven of the 32 ran for terms of less than 2 years (not including the three caretaker PMs appointed after the death of their predecessor) and a further five ran for less than three years. It is only in the most recent period that we have had successive stable governments.
“Every self-confessed saviour who has ridden in on his white horse”
Fwiw, su, I noted during the 2010 election campaign that for at least a week there, and in all her brand new publicity shots, Gillard appeared dressed all in white.
In fact, the entire ALP website was redesigned at that time to feature not a single non-Caucasian. Actually, that’s not true – if you clicked about ten pages in, you could eventually find a couple of images of Asian Australians that seemed to have been overlooked.
Oh, look. Nothing much has changed since…have a good flick through:
http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/families/super-reform—increasing-your-superannuation/
http://www.alp.org.au/get-involved/volunteering/
That ‘volunteering’ photo is about as racially diverse as the ALP chooses to represent itself throughout the entire site. In my view, this administration made no bones about the political direction it was going to head in to retain power.
emgem,
I don’t think Frank Forde holding the fort for a week between Curtin and Chifley counts as a challenge.
The question is: how many PMs faced a party leadership ballot in their first term?
And you can lay of personalizing the argument Patrickb. If the picture of Rudd’s character and his willingness to destroy his own party’s electoral prospects are correct then I don’t see any option other than what has been done, the collateral damage is unavoidable, they allowed him to flourish and now that they believe his influence to be noxious, the whole party suffers from the radical surgery required to excise that influence.
Nick, the hyperbolic claims originated with Rudd. Over and over he has declared himself in the most messianic terms to be the only person who can save the ALP from its undemocratic party processes, to save the party and to save the country. I take him at his word, he truly believes this to be his destiny. Nobody else has ever used such extreme terms in my memory, certainly not Gillard, nor combined it with an extraordinary dynastic approach to wresting power, complete with First Lady- in-waiting criticizing the party and its leader openly and on the record. I’m not the only one to find this combination to be indicative of anti-democratic tendencies to put it mildly, and to reflect negatively on his thought processes more generally. I’m not convincing anyone and repeating myself, I should probably leave it at that.
I agree that’s why the three caretaker PMs were excluded.
True, but these mosltly predate the modern two party system – back in the days on multipolar party coalitions. The immediate post-Menzies era in the Libs may be an exception. Im a bit hazy on that era.
We all know the period 1901 – 1910 was one of unstable government because there were three parties, but that is not the same thing as a PM being challenged within his own party in his first term.
MartinB @ 265 – In the sort of stressful job that MPs have I doubt it would be hard to justify. At least sufficient for public consumption anyway.
joe2 @ 261 – I thought ABC24 have been very supportive of Gillard in the coverage this morning (two Gillard supporters – Kernot very strongly supportive)
First Lady- in-waiting criticizing the party
On Twitter. no less.
Absolutely, modern era politics are different. However, it doesn’t follow that the current sytem of successive long term stable two party governments will go on forever.
It doesn’t even follow that it is a desirable status quo. I’ve been far happier with the current hung parliament than in the ALP term that preceded it.
akn – “Thomas Paine @ 223: exactly. Which is why young Greens, young eco-activists and social justice activists steer well clear of the ALP leaving, as a friend of mine who attended last year’s conference commented, mainly ‘short men with short forearms in charge’. In other words, unprepossessing men.”
I haven’t met many young people that I would describe as committed to those causes who give a damn about organisational politics full stop.
Young people with ideas don’t go into politics, they crowd-source and get on with things. They will do ‘whatever it takes’ to avoid wasting their time with committees.
Me too, by miles.
Here’s a good analysis I’ve extracted from a SMH reader:
“Rudd was made leader in 2006 precisely on the basis that he was non-factional – he was the reasonable face the ALP put up to persuade voters that they could, indeed, be involved in the selection of the Labor leader – but it was a con job from Day One.
The ALP machine was never going to allow Rudd to gain the personal power that would have come with a second electoral victory – they had planned to roll him from before he was elected. Gillard was installed by the factions to demonstrate to everyone that they were still in control – and they almost lost power as a result.
Now the factional leaders – Shorten especially – are happy enough to see the ALP defeated at the next election because the only thing that comes before factional interest is self-interest. Shorten can’t roll Gillard until she loses an election. He is content to spend some years in opposition to get the leadership.
You can’t blame “stupid voters” for this sort of behaviour. The stupid people to blame are those that either actually pay good money to be a member of the ALP or those who allow their union dues to be funnelled into the ALP coffers. The only solution to this mess is for the ALP to be wiped off the face of the political landscape.
@282
I think that is true though I don’t think it is anything to be celebrated. While many great things can be done outside of organisational politics, many extremely important issues and problems can only be addressed though legislative action
Yep Dave, that is spot on.
Dave – Kevin has always been a member of the right faction, so the idea that he was non-factional is quite frankly tosh. What he wasn’t was a factional powerbroker. Indeed, Kevin’s membership of the right faction was key to him taking power from Beazley (rather than Gillard, who actually delivered more numbers to that challenge).
Yes, ms balancing. There’s a current of anarchist thinking that is quietly influential, anti-organisational and seems to inform what appears to be to me counter hegemonic living.
Comment in sin bin again.
[Moderator note: Well, you will keep on typo-ing your own email address, akn! ~ tt]
I’m not celebrating it, LO – just noting it as a matter of fact. Unless political organisations can find a better way to respond to the changes in the way society is now structured, it wont change. The Greens demonstrate this as much as anyone – Hanson-Young and Ludlam are the epitome of media-savvy, bureaucratic blandness.
The other problem with that analysis Dave is that it denies any agency to Kevin in what happened. If he had pissed off fewer colleagues (factional and non-factional), and held things together better through the first months of 2010 the deposition would never have occurred, regardless of what particular factional powerbrokers wanted.
Ha, Rudd squashed like a bug, who’d a thunk it.
How exciting another brand new Barbie… I mean… Julia.
We now have “impatient” Julia.
This version of Julia talks really fast, doesn’t smile prettily, and is very dismissive of journalists asking dumb questions…
Another Julia for the collection.
@ furious balancing:
Well, who doesn’t? I’ve certainly had the experience of putting in the effort only to have a backroom zealot who never sees daylight overturn democratic processes because of some private ideological commitment. The worst thing about these types is that even when offered the opportunity for open discussion they shirk it because they know that their position is untenable.
Some months before Howard retook the the Liberal leadership from Downer, Malcolm Mackerras predicted in a radio interview a Howard led Liberal Party would win in a landslide victory, and Labor would be decimated. The interviewer was a bit incredulous pointing out that Howard wasn’t currently the leader, in the wilderness, described as “yesterday’s man”, and besides, the Labour government was improving somewhat in the polls.
Mackerras’s argument was that there was no-one else to lead them no matter how much some Liberal strategists wished otherwise and that Howard was light-years ahead of anyone else as far as political acumen. He also said no government who has to deal with minority groups to pass legislation as much as the Labor Party has under Keating does well in the upcoming election. The interviewer went on about Howard’s previous failed tilts and how he alienated just about everyone in the party….
I’m surprised that Shorten hasn’t announced his challenge yet. He must be having a long lunch.
Re Furious Balancing, I agree. No one is celebrating.
But here it is, Gillard back for her last best chance and Rudd, who looks like he needs a rest and a think anyway, can take a breather.
The thing need not be disastrous.
As Andrew Barlett says elsewhere, Australians simply don’t sense the real peril, a rightist Abbott government.
As for people”not getting involved in politics”, that Abbott should have any hope at all left, is a true tribute to Australian apathy and utter laziness.
BRENDON – But even if there is “no-one else” to lead Labor (other than Rudd, I assume) do you think they will?
I will agree that the panel had two Gillard supporters. I quite liked the Kernot quip that Kevin would win an Oscar…”for best actor in a non-supporting role”.
The News team were there to support Kevin ; maybe the usual IPA squad wanted to stay out of this and Hawker too busy now back on the election trail in Queensland. Poor Anna Bligh.
So, who’s winning the Oscars?
FINE – Julia
Well one thing about the result, we’ll miss the massive backflip the media would have done from messiah to wrecker.
Now they’ll just keep backing him all the way.
Stupid stupid man. He should have just come back supported Julia and just eaten the shit Swan sandwich.
Anything to avoid the Abbott desert set to come.
SAM – If you want a timetable for the next challenge, you should read John Black in the back of the AFR today. Don’t have a link, I’m afraid.
@ 304
What was she wearing?
The result is as expected.
Now JG needs to deliver for the next appx 18 months. No more blaming Rudd for whiteanting. For me that means a decent, humane policy on refugees. My preferred option, offshore processing in centres established in close proximity to sources of refugees, is not on the table at all although with the changes in DIAC this idea may see the light of day again. In the meantime, at least, the heat is on her for no more deaths at sea.
@ 307:
Clothes.
AKN – It won’t happy. She’s not that kinda girl.
RE Akn’s comment, she also needs to remember Bob Brown and rational enviro policy, She’s going to have to develop enough backbone to put some big players and their lackeys back in their places.
Come on Julia, no timidity this time.
@ 309
Aah.
I must be caught up in the wrong fairy tale, where they all lived happily ever after…
I’m glad that the campaign by The Murdochracy to roll Gillard and reinstate Rudd seems for the moment to have failed. It’s regrettable that Gillard has so little politically to recommend her and doesn’t even have ability to put on a good show, but this is where we are in Australia.
This is a time to celebrate a minor setback for Big Mouth.
David Irving (no not that one):
I think probably not, politicians may be dishonest and cynical but can’t afford to appear to be dishonest and cynical – its an interesting balancing act. Shorten does seem to be a person, despite being tainted by factional support, who can communicate and appear commonsensical and level-headed. Then again, why wouldn’t the factions chose the most capable person as their spear-carrier?
A premature takeover by Shorten will damage both the party (NSW disease) and his own image. At best, Gillard would have to be crushed by a series of appalling opinion polls (always a possibility) and then persuaded to step down in a bloodless and trauma-free transistion.
Rudd’s hope (slim maybe) is that the public will react badly to having their opinion treated with such contempt. People here sometimes over estimate how much attention normal voters pay to politics. I only discussed with two people at work today about the result, as it came through – both of them were quite genuinely surprised that Rudd had been defeated. If thats a typical reaction of the mass of non-political tragics, then Labor’s polling will get worse before it gets better
Tony Wright in the AGE editorial will put you straight, Wally. It’s more your celtic murder type of fairy tale:
You’re not a drover’s dog by any chance, are you? Because if so, there could be a job going…
Looks like the majority has spoken. 71 have confirmed that they don’t want Rudd in charge.
I think I’d rather take their word on Rudd than those who haven’t had to work with him.
And Arbib resigns. Every cloud….
Kernot on ABC24 was claiming that virtually anyone could have led the ALP to victory in 2007 election (eg Gillard could have). Not a Rudd fan at all I think!
adrian @ 316 – yes, he won’t be missed. But what if a lower house MP decides to take the “for the family option”……
Helen, that sounds like a happy ending, but it’s only a fairy tale…
Not a drover’s dog, too ugly for that, but probably qualified for that job you mentioned. Just an old dog now, seen too much, waiting to get put down but I hear there’s a queue.
@129
Kate Ellis has been “romantically linked” to execrable David Penberthy. How’s that for judgement?
Yes, patrickb, and once Gillard lived with an embezzler. Strange how it’s only the women who get judged by their romantic liaisons.
Grey, perhaps you should remember that it is not the latest Newspoll that determines who leads the government and neither should it be. Julia Gillard formed a government after an election where the opinion of the public was gauged.
Unpopularity in between the roughly 3 years of a parliaments duration may be the price of doing the right thing rather than the popular thing. Anyway, that notion has been accepted by all parties and just because Murdoch hacks have suggested otherwise, to the general public, does not make it wrong.
Arbib resigns … I wonder what his motives are.
What is the back story with Arbib? More time with the family? I would have thought the family were looking forward to the London Olympics.
Arbib probably got a job with the Yanks. There’s an upside anyway.
Perhaps Gillard clearing the decks of other famous leakers, and the classic faceless man.
Hopeful sign.
I’m happy to see the back of Arbib, but what matters is who replaces him in the Senate and the ministry. If it’s just another Sussex St hack, nothing will have been gained.
Been thinking about this long and hard this afternoon and….I think the ALP might just squeak through this.
If Rudd had won the press and Abbott would have been screaming for an early election. And as soon as it was called the papers would have torn Rudd limb from limb.
If Rudd can sit quietly on the back bench and if Gillard can maintain party discipline then the papers might….just might get bored of this in a week.
With Gillard maintaining her position I can’t see how Abbott can argue for an early election. Not that it will stop him.
I think the ALP might just squeak through this
I don’t, but there is a strange sense of catharsis in the media reports and analysis.
Should be business as usual by tomorrow though, with stories of Rudd plotting from the back bench and Shorten plotting from the front bench.
Arbib’s retirement from the Senate is mysterious and a radical self-absenting from the corridors of power.
Is he about to be given a plum job as part of a deal to show that Gillard is attempting to address criticisms of the power of factions in the ALP?
Was the resignation of Arbib the price demanded for a bloc of votes to go to Gillard rather than Rudd?
If so, then there is much astir in the ALP.
Bizarre, but brilliant. Good riddance.
The ABC had one very simple job to do on TV this morning. Report the correct result of the caucus vote.
And, despite hours of their self-important blather, they couldn’t manage it.
Bloody Shorten – I’m starting to think that you’re obsessed, Sam.
I can imagine more interesting people to be obsessed with mind you.
tssk may just be right – Rudd will pull his head in, Gillard stop being the robot woman, and the media will start scrutinising the opposition for a change.
Well maybe the first two…
LOL.
I reckon Arbib was Team Rudd’s pound of flesh. A blood offering.
Either that, or he’s been offered US Ambassador to Australia.
As long as Rudd, Shorten and Gillard all sing from the same song book they’ll starve this story of oxygen.
Maybe Gillard’ll make Rudd Minister for Sport, since he’s such a good sport.
fine@321, I’m sure I heard recently of a politician whose wife had too much money. Personally I find it reassuring that political convenience obviously doesn’t conquer all – and we’re fortunate that in Australia politicians are still allowed some private decisions and these sort of criticisms rarely get anywhere
@323 Could be a price for Rudd’s new found allegiance to a Gillard Prime Ministership, considering the part played.” Okay I’ll declare a peace but someone’s gotta go”. Not likely really, a decision of that import has the smell of personal anguish.
Yes … Arbib? The ALP just became marginally less repulsive.
zorronsky @ 339 – I suspect he was actually being genuine about wanting to spend more time with his family. One of my friends in high school was the son of a politician. IMO life as a federal politician, especially a minister is quite incompatible with being a parent. Well a parent that has a decent amount of involvement with their children anyway.
For long serving politicians I’m sure there’s many (mostly men) who completely missed out on their children growing up.
This was interesting in Krudd’s speech to caucus
What do people here think? Would you like to see the full report released? Or is that a bit like listening to opinion polls, some things are above the understanding of the mob.
Its interesting that Rudd is the one calling for the full release of the report.
I think Rudd has a point here. There’s no reason not tp release the whole report. By comparison with the back and forth of the last week, it’s going to be pretty tame stuff, and even if it isn’t, let’s have it.
An opening has been created for plain speaking. Get it all out into the open I say.
no reason not
tp{to} release@170
“These insiders are remarkably unanimous on this point — the popular candidate, they say, is a venomous, hypocritical, destructive and self-destructive psychopath.”
In Rudd’s defense, they would say that wouldn’t they? After all the sacking was the second worst strategic blunder of the 21st century so far (Iraq being the first) and no one, least of all an MP, likes to admit their mistakes.
@181
Ah Michael Duffy who, along with some called Paul Comrie-Thompson, run their pet radio programme (“Counterpoint” audience: 2 spiders and a chicken) supported by the pubic broadcaster they hate. If ever there was a case of the disingenuous pot calling the smarmy kettle black then that Duffy comment is it. Why he is called upon to comment on anything is beyond me. Oh and be careful with “What the people want”, Graham Whatsit is ex-LNP and I expect the site (Online Opinion) has drifted further to the right since the great “secondary boycott” controversy of ’10-11.
It’s time to close this thread and keep current commentary in the latest thread.