A purge

[pink]

What is happening in federal Labor atm is what should have happened in NSW state labor at least a year before the last state election. There have been a lot of greivances simmering away and in a way its good now that they have surfaced and everybody can get everything of their chests. Labor will recover from this and probably be better for it in the long run. By the time the next election comes around we would have served 2 terms, which is about average for a Labor federal government. Labor provides all the reforms and the Libs reap all the benefits. If we win the next election, we win. If we dont, then let the constituents regret their choice at their leisure.

Rudd puts his personal ambitions well before the good of the party. He claims that he is the best person to take it up to Abbott in the next election. Remember in the 2007 campaign "Work Choices" was the main issue and the unions worked harder than ever before with their magnificent "Your rights at work" campaign. I honestly feel that the proverbial drover's dog would have won that one.

The question that I've been asking everybody is; If a party member goes out of his way to sabotage an election campaign, causing a minority government and then goes on attempting to undermine that government, shouldn't that be grounds for dismissal from the party?

Unfortunately, with Rudd's "Tea Party" tactics for a caucus vote, he is only achieving alienating the public against the inevitable winner. The laws of the party when it comes to caucus votes in the federal sphere, Labor representatives from the states or any outsiders or not to be involved.

I do wonder with his family standing like soldiers behind him, if he treats them with the same disdain that he treated the ministers, staff and public servants when he was Prime Minister. His daughter and son-in-law have come over from China for a caucus vote. Were they ordered to do his? I'm just wondering.

They say a leopard never changes his spots and from what I have seen since his dramatic resignation from the Foreign Affairs ministry at 1.30am DC time, he is still the same old same old.

[Matilda]

1. Both Gillard and Rudd have been guilty of putting ambition before the good of party or country.

It's unfortunate that there is no possible third candidate at the moment - eventually, Bill Shorten will become leader, and I think he has the potential to be a great Labor figure. But he hasn't yet been in parliament long enough; nor has he lived down his role in the events of 2010.

I think the coup against Rudd was badly managed – there was a better way, and that was for Julia to go to Kevin and say "I've got the numbers to roll you, but I will support you through the next election provided I have your word that you will step down in twelve months and hand the leadership to me". If she and her backers had really been thinking of the party and not their own self-interest, that's how it would have been done. But her ambition led her to do two foolish things – publicly knife her leader, and switch her allegiance from the Left to the Right, just for the sake of getting the job early. And for those two reasons she is still mistrusted by the electorate, and I don't think it's going to get better. She should never have allowed her colleagues to so publicly humiliate Rudd this week, and she shouldn't have done it herself, and she proved once again that her political judgment is sadly lacking. Her praise of Rudd in parliament yesterday afternoon sounded like hypocritical baloney – no wonder the Opposition were laughing; for once, I was in agreement with them, although I didn't feel like laughing.

Rudd was definitely delusional if he thought he had any chance – I can't believe his numbers man (Kim Carr) would have told him he had the numbers to roll Julia, so we must put it down to his own hubris. He was a good Foreign Minister, and now he's destroyed his political career, probably for ever. It's a shame, because the man has vision that Gillard lacks – she's a good administrator, a good negotiator and a good parliamentarian, but she completely lacks inspiration. She is also notably lacking in the judgment of the public that Rudd has in spades. The shame is that they could actually have been a good team had they been able to put their own egos to the service of the party.

As for the Libs – they certainly have the party vote at the moment, but a leader who is detested as much as Gillard is. If they ever wake up and put Malcolm Turnbull back, Labor is definitely finished.

[pink]

2. When it comes to a PM's promise

to hand over the leadership at any time in the future, I'm sure Paul Keating and Peter Costello would have a good laugh. Even having witnesses to such an arrangement (with little notes put in their wallets), it just doesn't happen.

Do you honestly believe that Rudd would have stepped down of his own accord 12 months after the 2010 election? You've seen over the last 2 weeks how relentlessly ambitious he is. Even when knowing that he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the leadership battle he still insisted on carrying on a "Tea Party" style popularity contest which only resulted in alienating more Labor voters.

I find it quite ironic that he was the man who came in to abolish "Work Choices" when it turned out that HE was the boss from hell.

I also think that Bill Shorten is positioning himself for a go at the leadership. I think he would be a good PM in the future, but I still think Julia Gillard is still the best person for the job. Dont forget that Bob Hawke was hardly in the parliament 5 minutes before he snatched the leadership from Bill Hayden in 1983.

[Matilda]

3. I don't think Rudd would have willingly handed over the leadership,

but a promise in front of witnesses would have given Gillard the legitimacy she lacked. She could have then moved against him later, knowing not only that she'd win, but that she had a right to do so. Had she followed that course, there might have been less anger directed against her, although I don't doubt that there would still have been a lot of resentment, given Rudd's popularity. But she would have had some legitimacy instead of none at all.

Polling shows that as things stand now, Shorten wouldn't win an election. When Hawke took the leadership from Hayden, he was already a well-known ALP figure, and very popular in his own right. And no matter what the caucus says, the public still casts the final vote, and Shorten currently polls more poorly than Gillard. Truth is that outside the union movement, few in the public probably know who he is.

[pink]

4. Julia DID have legitimacy.

She had more than enough signatures to cause a spill. From the moment Rudd knew that he had no chance of winning in a caucus vote for the leadership in 2010, he decided not to run. He knew it would be a landslide against him. As soon as he decided not to run, that's when her position was legitimised. Why did so many members of the cuacus turn on him? The only mistake that was made during all that drama was not making it public at the time, the reason for the revolt. In a sad sort of way, they wanted to protect his reputation with the electorate.

We have the SMH delivered everyday and by mistake The Australian was delivered today instead. Rudd's brother wrote an article rather scathing of Kevin. He cant even get along with his own family.

Kevin Rudd has proven that he could not handle the position of Prime Minister and just because the public seem to like him, is not good enough. If popularity is all one needs, how about we ask Hugh Jackman to run. He might not be a good politician but hey, he's good eye candy and very, very talented.

Unfortunately, I dont think we've seen the last of Rudd. When someone says that they're sorry for being a bit of a "Mr Grumpy", they just dont get it.

I think the time has finally come where teaching our political system should be compulsary in our schools.

[Matilda]

5. She never had legitimacy in the eyes of the Australian public.

And on polling day, it's those opinions that count, which is why we now have a hung parliament.

[pink]

6. Hung parliament

We have a hung parliament because Rudd attempted to sabotage the election campaign.

[Matilda]

7. I think what Rudd was reprehensible,

but it only worked because of the inherent distrust of Julia Gillard, and the electorate's bafflement at what had happened. Bill Hayden had plenty to say about Bob Hawke after he'd taken the leadership, but it didn't hurt Hawke a bit, because of his already solid popularity.

You obviously feel very emotional about Julia Gillard, and I certainly think she has a great deal of administrative ability, but she is the cause of a lot of her own problems right now; it is not all the fault of Kevin Rudd. Julia simply has very poor political antennae, and a gift for trying to outsmart opponents in ways that rebound on her.

Rudd's resignation and challenge last week were a futile exercise and very hard to understand in any rational terms, but instead of playing the issues, Julia attempted a personal smear campaign which backfired. And allowing Swan and Crean to attack Rudd in such a humiliating way was unstatesmanlike and should not have been countenanced by a leader who clearly had the upper hand.

Sorry, but whatever her attributes, reading the public mood is definitely not one of them; Julia repeatedly shoots herself in the foot whenever she tries to get too smart. And while the caucus vote was the one that mattered this week, incalculable harm has been done to the Labor party, much of it by Gillard and her supporters, and I don't think the electorate will forget. Rudd should not have challenged, but instead of a clean victory, Julia Gillard's image has been tarnished once again by her own actions.

[peakhillfm]

8. Rudd was only worried about Rudd

Rudd did the wrong thing by 'challanging' and Gillard has apparently done the wronmg this with all this MEDIA crap about what she did and didnt do.
It seems to me that the media,both paper and electronic have it in for the Labor Government and it dosent matter what she or any member of the Labor Government does there is always those of the media that want a bit of it.
Rudd was foolish and knew that he didnt have the numbers or the inititive to run the Labor Party and Gillard is still trying to break down the 'glass celting' which she is doing,BUT has a long way to go.
After hearing Julie Bishop this morning on Sjky News,we can see why she is just the deputy of the Opposition,as I dont believe that she has a brain between her ears,she is so incompetent that she dosent know what 1 and 1 is?????
Abbott isnt much better and he hjasnt got a POITIVE brain in his head.
Just wounder what would happen if all this rubbish was going on in the Liberal Party,would there be so much 'MEDIA' attention.I dont think so.
It seems to me that the News Limited and also the Heral etc all being owned by Murdock seem to want the Labor Government on the scrap heap and for Abbott to stuff us up like his predecessor did.

Just my thoughts on the matter

[Matilda]

9. Could I suggest spellcheck, please?

Your post is very difficult to read with all the mistakes.

Just my thoughts.

[peakhillfm]

10. What.......

Never used spellcheck and never will.My problem is that when I type two fingers and I dont think to check what I have typed.
Guess that I will have to do so......
Sorry about that
Basically all I said was that Julie Bishop is totally useless and that Tony Abbott should be challenged by Malcolm Turnbull or something like that