Won by a big margin


Labor has rejected Australians opinions and double dumped Rudd

Numbers Soon

He may do a Billy Hughes and join the Libs and lead them in the next election   ;D

73 julia 29 kevin..he got flogged worse than Alan Jones at a bunga bunga party

Well, there goes Labor.

And there goes the country after the next election.

I'm off to renew my passport......

Kat wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport......

Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :)

Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy?

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy?

Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there.
I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered

____ wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

Won by a big margin Labor has rejected Australians opinions and double dumped Rudd

Awww... boo hoo ;D

At least the caucus, the PMs department staff and DFAT staff are spared working with a demented sociopath.

Maybe Rudd can run for Queensland's state Parliament and afflict Queenslanders with his sociopathy.

Today, Labor have proven without a shadow of a doubt that theyre about nothing except paychecks and Factional powerbrokers.

Truly, what a sh*thole Canberra has become.

lol now you are even resorting to being sexist toward Gillard (nice subjust heading). This is pricesless.

I feel so sad for you all, lol not really.

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:14am:

Today, Labor have proven without a shadow of a doubt that theyre about nothing except paychecks and Factional powerbrokers. Truly, what a sh*thole Canberra has become.

Maybe you could volunteer to work for Rudd's next challenge... Bashing down his demented ego.... It'd be the toughest year of your life... But you'd be doing it for the people ;D

rudd was never going to win

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:57am:

Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:54am: Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport...... Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :)

not in any small measure by the govt tending to arrest and hassle the opposition. Democracy is not well entrenched in singapore - the only country with a jail sentence for j-walking.

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy?

we've been hoping for that for 5 years. All we have gotten is everything we voted against.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:57am: Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:54am: Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport...... Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :) not in any small measure by the govt tending to arrest and hassle the opposition. Democracy is not well entrenched in singapore - the only country with a jail sentence for j-walking.

And the problem with that is?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:44am:

rudd was never going to win

Neither was the country.

A choice between Gillard and Abbott.....?

No choice at all, they're both hopeless.

Gillard can't win an election, and Abbott
doesn't deserve to.

I've simply given up hope for the place.......

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered

Yes, I completely agree with both those points.

Kat wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:44am: rudd was never going to win Neither was the country. A choice between Gillard and Abbott.....? No choice at all, they're both hopeless. Gillard can't win an election, and Abbott doesn't deserve to. I've simply given up hope for the place.......

Well pack your bags a piss off... ::)

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

On Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy?

Yes Mr Gist , but is LABOR capable of it ? Border protection is the biggest thing for this country . Those boat people and their children are going to be a huge problem . There is so much trouble in Europe from these people and that can not be denied . Gillard mob gives them so much , far beyond the original intention .

FriYAY wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:54am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:44am: rudd was never going to win Neither was the country. A choice between Gillard and Abbott.....? No choice at all, they're both hopeless. Gillard can't win an election, and Abbott doesn't deserve to. I've simply given up hope for the place....... Well pack your bags a piss off... ::)

Soon as I can find a boat........

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered

Do you really believe she can beat Abbott.

Delusional much?

The only hope the ALP had at the next election was a Rudd PM.

PigStyPete wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: On Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Yes Mr Gist , but is LABOR capable of it ? Border protection is the biggest thing for this country . Those boat people and their children are going to be a huge problem . There is so much trouble in Europe from these people and that can not be denied . Gillard mob gives them so much , far beyond the original intention .

Great. Just what this site needs - another brain dead idiot. Or more likely, one of the existing brain dead idiots playing pretend like the drooling child they are.

My advice to you is don't blow your nose, it'll just make you stoopider.

Verge wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:06am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered Do you really believe she can beat Abbott. Delusional much? The only hope the ALP had at the next election was a Rudd PM.

Rubbish. Ever since Hawke, Labor seems to think they need some messiah to win elections. Whereas what they really need is discipline in the ranks to show a united front, good policies and the skill to sell them. So far they get half a tick on policies and no tick at all for the other two.

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

PigStyPete wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:09am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: On Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Yes Mr Gist , but is LABOR capable of it ? Border protection is the biggest thing for this country . Those boat people and their children are going to be a huge problem . There is so much trouble in Europe from these people and that can not be denied . Gillard mob gives them so much , far beyond the original intention . Great. Just what this site needs - another brain dead idiot. Or more likely, one of the existing brain dead idiots playing pretend like the drooling child they are. My advice to you is don't blow your nose, it'll just make you stoopider.

Gistie , you have the hide to call me brain dead ?? Bloody hell , that chum is funny . Flo.ck mee , you are a classic *ick head . Suppose we can be brain dead together , shti.t wit .moron head .

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:12am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:06am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered Do you really believe she can beat Abbott. Delusional much? The only hope the ALP had at the next election was a Rudd PM. Rubbish. Ever since Hawke, Labor seems to think they need some messiah to win elections. Whereas what they really need is discipline in the ranks to show a united front, good policies and the skill to sell them. So far they get half a tick on policies and no tick at all for the other two.

Gillards standings in the polls seem to beg to differ.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered

Abbotts days are numbered?
Wipe the floor with Abbott?
Your dreaming.
Labor's had five years to 'wipe the floor' with Abbott, and so far they have demonstrated in this time they are only competent enough to wipe their own backsides.
She's going to have to be competent and deliver some good policy to wipe anything with Abbott.
The contest today was just between the worst ever PM and the 2nd worst ever PM.
Have a nice 26% day.
Juliar is. ;)

Rudd had the overwhelming support of the people. So did Hitler. It's amazing that Gillard received the most support ever in a spill, regardless of the support Rudd has in the community. Marginal back benches voted against their own interests.

It highlights what I often point out. People are voting for candidates they don't KNOW from a bar of soap.
They are voting for gang members. Real parlimentary reform would involve the abolition of parties and factions. Rather than the current vogue for amalgamating local government, we should be looking at adding a tier. The BLOCK! local blocks of something like 1 -  200 homes electing representatives that forward their views to WARD level and ward representatives who elect their most capable members to go on to Local/state and federal levels. this would be a system that stops the tail wagging the dog.

The members of the Labor Caucus KNEW personally the people they were voting for. And so for that matter did the Liberal opposition. They've made it quite clear that they'd prefer Rudd to be leading Labor  :D

PigStyPete wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:22am: PigStyPete wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:09am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: On Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Yes Mr Gist , but is LABOR capable of it ? Border protection is the biggest thing for this country . Those boat people and their children are going to be a huge problem . There is so much trouble in Europe from these people and that can not be denied . Gillard mob gives them so much , far beyond the original intention . Great. Just what this site needs - another brain dead idiot. Or more likely, one of the existing brain dead idiots playing pretend like the drooling child they are. My advice to you is don't blow your nose, it'll just make you stoopider. Gistie , you have the hide to call me brain dead ?? Bloody hell , that chum is funny . Flo.ck mee , you are a classic *ick head . Suppose we can be brain dead together , shti.t wit .moron head .

See what happens when you blow your nose? I warned you. You'll never recover that now dumbo.

Comment while waiting for Rudds press conference (Annabel Crabb?) "I expect the best performance by an actor in an unsupportive role" And so it turned out ;D

Verge wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:25am: Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:12am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:06am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered Do you really believe she can beat Abbott. Delusional much? The only hope the ALP had at the next election was a Rudd PM. Rubbish. Ever since Hawke, Labor seems to think they need some messiah to win elections. Whereas what they really need is discipline in the ranks to show a united front, good policies and the skill to sell them. So far they get half a tick on policies and no tick at all for the other two. Gillards standings in the polls seem to beg to differ.

Are you talking about preferred PM? You do realise that that measure doesn't mean much other than to give the media something to fill fish'n'chip wrappers with don't you?

Grey wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

Rudd had the overwhelming support of the people. So did Hitler. It's amazing that Gillard received the most support ever in a spill, regardless of the support Rudd has in the community. Marginal back benches voted against their own interests. It highlights what I often point out. People are voting for candidates they don't KNOW from a bar of soap. They are voting for gang members. Real parlimentary reform would involve the abolition of parties and factions. Rather than the current vogue for amalgamating local government, we should be looking at adding a tier. The BLOCK! local blocks of something like 1 -  200 homes electing representatives that forward their views to WARD level and ward representatives who elect their most capable members to go on to Local/state and federal levels. this would be a system that stops the tail wagging the dog. The members of the Labor Caucus KNEW personally the people they were voting for. And so for that matter did the Liberal opposition. They've made it quite clear that they'd prefer Rudd to be leading Labor  :D

You mean a bit like Russia under the communist system? That didn't seem to work out all that well for them.

Needless to say, I disagree with you on that Grey. I think all that system does is create more politicians whose only job will be to do whatever it takes to get themselves re-elected. You and I will lose whatever little true representation we have.

Thank you Labor MPs. You have given the Coalition a massive majority at the next election. We would have won anyway, but this just makes the gap even bigger, and ensures that you will be in the wilderness for at least 20 years. I think that I can speak on behalf of all right-wing Australians, THANK YOU!!!!!!

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:52am:

73 julia 29 kevin..he got flogged worse than Alan Jones at a bunga bunga party

71 Julia
31 Kevin

Still a flogging though.

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Grey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:39am: Rudd had the overwhelming support of the people. So did Hitler. It's amazing that Gillard received the most support ever in a spill, regardless of the support Rudd has in the community. Marginal back benches voted against their own interests. It highlights what I often point out. People are voting for candidates they don't KNOW from a bar of soap. They are voting for gang members. Real parlimentary reform would involve the abolition of parties and factions. Rather than the current vogue for amalgamating local government, we should be looking at adding a tier. The BLOCK! local blocks of something like 1 -  200 homes electing representatives that forward their views to WARD level and ward representatives who elect their most capable members to go on to Local/state and federal levels. this would be a system that stops the tail wagging the dog. The members of the Labor Caucus KNEW personally the people they were voting for. And so for that matter did the Liberal opposition. They've made it quite clear that they'd prefer Rudd to be leading Labor  :D You mean a bit like Russia under the communist system? That didn't seem to work out all that well for them. Needless to say, I disagree with you on that Grey. I think all that system does is create more politicians whose only job will be to do whatever it takes to get themselves re-elected. You and I will lose whatever little true representation we have.

That's the big objection isn't it?  ;D

Look under Communism that tail wagged the dog and the tail was very strong indeed. People didn't set up their local 'Soviets', the Bolsheviks did. The Bolsheviks decided who was going to run and be in the Soviets and for a start that was card carrying party members only.

What I am suggesting isn't that. Throughout human political history the structure has been decided from the top. The evolutionary trend is towards the decentralising of power. Giving more to the people and increasing the voting franchise to all the people. But the TOP has only grudgingly given away as little as possible.

What I am suggesting is reversing the current of power. Not 'power to the people', but 'power from the people'. That's Democracy proper.

Let's look at practical matters in a hypothetical.

Our block has a 10 acre park. It's all grass with a couple of peppermint trees down one end. Our needs are for a cycleway around the perimetre for children to learn bike riding away from roads. We need A space for cricket and football, other spaces for frisby throwing, we want to be able to use the park for overflow parking (when we have a party) and some older people would like a flower garden. We all want more shade. A barbeque and gazebo would be nice too.

Right now we don't get to discuss what happens to that park. We have no mechanism for discussing it amongst ourselves. From time to time council might decide to do something and that may well conflict with our actual needs. For instance the federal government may be dishing out money to improve facilities for toddlers and also for irrigation. So we get a playground plonked in the middle, still with no shade provided, and a lot of upheaval to put in state of the art irrigation. Our estate is built on reclaimed swamp land. It has a high water table, the grass has never needed watering. We have plenty of teenagers with no resources to speak of but no toddlers  Sound familiar?

We do need a copper because some of that teen energy is being directed negatively. We keep getting mail boxes vandalised, cars stolen, and bottles broken on the footpath. We pay our taxes (for a police force) to the federal government who give some back to the state government,(after spending it on setting up a polce force bureacracy and big advertising campaigns to let us know what they might do) who decide how to spend it; after setting up their own bureacracy and advertising funds. The State government decides that the most marginal metropolitan seats are in need of more police even though our regional city has practically no police force at all. We've voted the same for the last sixty years. Sound familiar?

A lot more decisions need to be taken by local people. A lot more of our taxes need to stay where they are collected.

____ wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

Congrats ~ Childless Atheist Ex-Commie ALP Leader

I know that you are just paraphrasing something attributed to Kevin Rudd, rather than having any original thoughts of your own but I find  your emphasis on Julia Gillard bring childless as incredibly sexist.  Is having children within wedlock a prerequisite of being a Prime Minister?  And would you be saying the same things if she were male?  Is a woman less of a person if she does not have children?

Surely we've moved on from that sort of attitude.  And if we're going to resort to this sort of attack, what about Julie Bishop: she is childless, unmarried and divorced.....

Frances wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:01pm:

____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:37am: Congrats ~ Childless Atheist Ex-Commie ALP Leader I know that you are just paraphrasing something attributed to Kevin Rudd, rather than having any original thoughts of your own but I find  your emphasis on Julia Gillard bring childless as incredibly sexist.  Is having children within wedlock a prerequisite of being a Prime Minister?  And would you be saying the same things if she were male?  Is a woman less of a person if she does not have children? Surely we've moved on from that sort of attitude.  And if we're going to resort to this sort of attack, what about Julie Bishop: she is childless, unmarried and divorced.....

Yet the opposition foreign minister didn't say it about herself in the Stag Pub in Adelaide.

And Childless is not sexist because males can be childless too ... are you , by pretending offence, actually the sexist party here. Men have just as much right to be protected from sexism as anyone else.

____ wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

And Childless is not sexist because males can be childless too ... are you , by pretending offence, actually the sexist party here. Men have just as much right to be protected from sexism as anyone else.

But this sort of attack is invariably directed at females.

Frances wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:01pm:

____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:37am: Congrats ~ Childless Atheist Ex-Commie ALP Leader I know that you are just paraphrasing something attributed to Kevin Rudd, rather than having any original thoughts of your own but I find  your emphasis on Julia Gillard bring childless as incredibly sexist.  Is having children within wedlock a prerequisite of being a Prime Minister?  And would you be saying the same things if she were male?  Is a woman less of a person if she does not have children? Surely we've moved on from that sort of attitude.  And if we're going to resort to this sort of attack, what about Julie Bishop: she is childless, unmarried and divorced.....

Yes, but Julie B. is not godless, barren or soulless.
Nor is she incompetent.

There's no doubt today is a real game changer! Tony Abbott has never looked more stupid.

Frances wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:08pm: And Childless is not sexist because males can be childless too ... are you , by pretending offence, actually the sexist party here. Men have just as much right to be protected from sexism as anyone else. But this sort of attack is invariably directed at females.

No it isn't and by making this remark shows your inverted male sexist attitude.

You can't just lift up women by trying to drag down men.

____ wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:17pm:

Frances wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:12pm: ____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:08pm: And Childless is not sexist because males can be childless too ... are you , by pretending offence, actually the sexist party here. Men have just as much right to be protected from sexism as anyone else. But this sort of attack is invariably directed at females. No it isn't and by making this remark shows your inverted male sexist attitude. You can't just lift up women by trying to drag down men.

lol Gillard getting back in has really made you loopy. You go on as if you and your commie greens party are the champions of women and minorities. Frauds is all you greenies are.

Next thing you are going to say is turning boats around is the right thing to do lol

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:20pm:

____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:17pm: Frances wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:12pm: ____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:08pm: And Childless is not sexist because males can be childless too ... are you , by pretending offence, actually the sexist party here. Men have just as much right to be protected from sexism as anyone else. But this sort of attack is invariably directed at females. No it isn't and by making this remark shows your inverted male sexist attitude. You can't just lift up women by trying to drag down men. lol Gillard getting back in has really made you loopy. You go on as if you and your commie greens party are the champions of women and minorities. Frauds is all you greenies are. Next thing you are going to say is turning boats around is the right thing to do lol

Greens are the champions of equality ... our policies and actions prove this.


Thats why we don't have an agenda to torture children in refugee prison camps overseas ... unlike the old parties.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:52am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:57am: Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:54am: Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport...... Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :) not in any small measure by the govt tending to arrest and hassle the opposition. Democracy is not well entrenched in singapore - the only country with a jail sentence for j-walking. And the problem with that is?

I guess the notion of anti-democratic behaviour and intimidation is okay for Greens supporters since that is pretty much your ideology.

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:54am:

Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:36am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:25am: Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:12am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:06am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered Do you really believe she can beat Abbott. Delusional much? The only hope the ALP had at the next election was a Rudd PM. Rubbish. Ever since Hawke, Labor seems to think they need some messiah to win elections. Whereas what they really need is discipline in the ranks to show a united front, good policies and the skill to sell them. So far they get half a tick on policies and no tick at all for the other two. Gillards standings in the polls seem to beg to differ. Are you talking about preferred PM? You do realise that that measure doesn't mean much other than to give the media something to fill fish'n'chip wrappers with don't you?

PPM seems to matter to you lot a great deal - whenever Gillard is in front. When abbot is in front it is 'meaningless'.

now for the record, the measure IS meaningless, but not just when abbott is behind.

Grey wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:58am: Grey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:39am: Rudd had the overwhelming support of the people. So did Hitler. It's amazing that Gillard received the most support ever in a spill, regardless of the support Rudd has in the community. Marginal back benches voted against their own interests. It highlights what I often point out. People are voting for candidates they don't KNOW from a bar of soap. They are voting for gang members. Real parlimentary reform would involve the abolition of parties and factions. Rather than the current vogue for amalgamating local government, we should be looking at adding a tier. The BLOCK! local blocks of something like 1 -  200 homes electing representatives that forward their views to WARD level and ward representatives who elect their most capable members to go on to Local/state and federal levels. this would be a system that stops the tail wagging the dog. The members of the Labor Caucus KNEW personally the people they were voting for. And so for that matter did the Liberal opposition. They've made it quite clear that they'd prefer Rudd to be leading Labor  :D You mean a bit like Russia under the communist system? That didn't seem to work out all that well for them. Needless to say, I disagree with you on that Grey. I think all that system does is create more politicians whose only job will be to do whatever it takes to get themselves re-elected. You and I will lose whatever little true representation we have. That's the big objection isn't it?  ;D Look under Communism that tail wagged the dog and the tail was very strong indeed. People didn't set up their local 'Soviets', the Bolsheviks did. The Bolsheviks decided who was going to run and be in the Soviets and for a start that was card carrying party members only. What I am suggesting isn't that. Throughout human political history the structure has been decided from the top. The evolutionary trend is towards the decentralising of power. Giving more to the people and increasing the voting franchise to all the people. But the TOP has only grudgingly given away as little as possible. What I am suggesting is reversing the current of power. Not 'power to the people', but 'power from the people'. That's Democracy proper. Let's look at practical matters in a hypothetical. Our block has a 10 acre park. It's all grass with a couple of peppermint trees down one end. Our needs are for a cycleway around the perimetre for children to learn bike riding away from roads. We need A space for cricket and football, other spaces for frisby throwing, we want to be able to use the park for overflow parking (when we have a party) and some older people would like a flower garden. We all want more shade. A barbeque and gazebo would be nice too. Right now we don't get to discuss what happens to that park. We have no mechanism for discussing it amongst ourselves. From time to time council might decide to do something and that may well conflict with our actual needs. For instance the federal government may be dishing out money to improve facilities for toddlers and also for irrigation. So we get a playground plonked in the middle, still with no shade provided, and a lot of upheaval to put in state of the art irrigation. Our estate is built on reclaimed swamp land. It has a high water table, the grass has never needed watering. We have plenty of teenagers with no resources to speak of but no toddlers  Sound familiar? We do need a copper because some of that teen energy is being directed negatively. We keep getting mail boxes vandalised, cars stolen, and bottles broken on the footpath. We pay our taxes (for a police force) to the federal government who give some back to the state government,(after spending it on setting up a polce force bureacracy and big advertising campaigns to let us know what they might do) who decide how to spend it; after setting up their own bureacracy and advertising funds. The State government decides that the most marginal metropolitan seats are in need of more police even though our regional city has practically no police force at all. We've voted the same for the last sixty years. Sound familiar? A lot more decisions need to be taken by local people. A lot more of our taxes need to stay where they are collected.

the real problem with your idea is the presumption that the people's ideas wil be passed up the line. After all you lot cheered when Oakshott and Windsor did preceisely the opposite.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:53am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:52am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:57am: Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:54am: Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport...... Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :) not in any small measure by the govt tending to arrest and hassle the opposition. Democracy is not well entrenched in singapore - the only country with a jail sentence for j-walking. And the problem with that is? I guess the notion of anti-democratic behaviour and intimidation is okay for Greens supporters since that is pretty much your ideology.

Its a typically Asian system which works well and given the strength of Asian economies once they have thrown off colonialism and allowed to run things as they have done for thousands of years without colonial interference I see nothing to complain about.
They dont have the problems of a whiney opposition constantly talking down the economy for their own political advantage. And to top it off my wife and I can go for a stroll along the river at 3am if we please and be safe as houses...try that in Sydney or LA.

Grey wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

There's no doubt today is a real game changer! Tony Abbott has never looked more stupid.

well you certainly look more stupid!!

Abbott is the big winner out of all of this. Labor is hopelessly divided andnow Rudd is now on the backbench ready to leadk cabinet gossip to Laurie Oakes as much as he wants. Plus all those that supported Rudd are going to be dumped and there's some more bad karma...

Abbott is THE big winner out of all this.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:53am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:52am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:57am: Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:54am: Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport...... Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :) not in any small measure by the govt tending to arrest and hassle the opposition. Democracy is not well entrenched in singapore - the only country with a jail sentence for j-walking. And the problem with that is? I guess the notion of anti-democratic behaviour and intimidation is okay for Greens supporters since that is pretty much your ideology.

So now its anti democratic to stand up for the rule of law.

Well done Long, a new low here, even for you.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

Grey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:14pm: There's no doubt today is a real game changer! Tony Abbott has never looked more stupid. well you certainly look more stupid!! Abbott is the big winner out of all of this. Labor is hopelessly divided andnow Rudd is now on the backbench ready to leadk cabinet gossip to Laurie Oakes as much as he wants. Plus all those that supported Rudd are going to be dumped and there's some more bad karma... Abbott is THE big winner out of all this.

How is Labor divided?
Julia gave Kev an ass whooping, its Abbott and Turnbull that only have 1 vote difference in their own party.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 3:15pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:53am: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:52am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:57am: Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:54am: Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport...... Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :) not in any small measure by the govt tending to arrest and hassle the opposition. Democracy is not well entrenched in singapore - the only country with a jail sentence for j-walking. And the problem with that is? I guess the notion of anti-democratic behaviour and intimidation is okay for Greens supporters since that is pretty much your ideology. Its a typically Asian system which works well and given the strength of Asian economies once they have thrown off colonialism and allowed to run things as they have done for thousands of years without colonial interference I see nothing to complain about. They dont have the problems of a whiney opposition constantly talking down the economy for their own political advantage. And to top it off my wife and I can go for a stroll along the river at 3am if we please and be safe as houses...try that in Sydney or LA.

so you support de facto dictatorship

how 'Green' of you.

Seriously, I am not sure if you are just joking and being a troll or if you really believe it.

If you dont, then good but if you do, feel free to assume all the disgust you can imagine I would give you in real life. anyone that supports dictatorship deserves all the scorn I can muster

Quote:

Rudd is now on the backbench ready to leadk cabinet gossip to Laurie Oakes as much as he wants

LOL longwinded proving yet again he has no idea, backbenchers are not privy to cabinet matters, oh great moron Rudd will find out about cabinet decisions about as soon as you do after they're leaked to journos from those inside it. ;D ;D

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:54am:

Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:36am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:25am: Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:12am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:06am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered Do you really believe she can beat Abbott. Delusional much? The only hope the ALP had at the next election was a Rudd PM. Rubbish. Ever since Hawke, Labor seems to think they need some messiah to win elections. Whereas what they really need is discipline in the ranks to show a united front, good policies and the skill to sell them. So far they get half a tick on policies and no tick at all for the other two. Gillards standings in the polls seem to beg to differ. Are you talking about preferred PM? You do realise that that measure doesn't mean much other than to give the media something to fill fish'n'chip wrappers with don't you?

Since the 2010 election an ALP lead by Gillard has yet to be infront of the Coalition on 2PP.

Why do you think that is considering under Rudd the Coalition were never in front.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Grey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 12:49pm: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:58am: Grey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:39am: Rudd had the overwhelming support of the people. So did Hitler. It's amazing that Gillard received the most support ever in a spill, regardless of the support Rudd has in the community. Marginal back benches voted against their own interests. It highlights what I often point out. People are voting for candidates they don't KNOW from a bar of soap. They are voting for gang members. Real parlimentary reform would involve the abolition of parties and factions. Rather than the current vogue for amalgamating local government, we should be looking at adding a tier. The BLOCK! local blocks of something like 1 -  200 homes electing representatives that forward their views to WARD level and ward representatives who elect their most capable members to go on to Local/state and federal levels. this would be a system that stops the tail wagging the dog. The members of the Labor Caucus KNEW personally the people they were voting for. And so for that matter did the Liberal opposition. They've made it quite clear that they'd prefer Rudd to be leading Labor  :D You mean a bit like Russia under the communist system? That didn't seem to work out all that well for them. Needless to say, I disagree with you on that Grey. I think all that system does is create more politicians whose only job will be to do whatever it takes to get themselves re-elected. You and I will lose whatever little true representation we have. That's the big objection isn't it?  ;D Look under Communism that tail wagged the dog and the tail was very strong indeed. People didn't set up their local 'Soviets', the Bolsheviks did. The Bolsheviks decided who was going to run and be in the Soviets and for a start that was card carrying party members only. What I am suggesting isn't that. Throughout human political history the structure has been decided from the top. The evolutionary trend is towards the decentralising of power. Giving more to the people and increasing the voting franchise to all the people. But the TOP has only grudgingly given away as little as possible. What I am suggesting is reversing the current of power. Not 'power to the people', but 'power from the people'. That's Democracy proper. Let's look at practical matters in a hypothetical. Our block has a 10 acre park. It's all grass with a couple of peppermint trees down one end. Our needs are for a cycleway around the perimetre for children to learn bike riding away from roads. We need A space for cricket and football, other spaces for frisby throwing, we want to be able to use the park for overflow parking (when we have a party) and some older people would like a flower garden. We all want more shade. A barbeque and gazebo would be nice too. Right now we don't get to discuss what happens to that park. We have no mechanism for discussing it amongst ourselves. From time to time council might decide to do something and that may well conflict with our actual needs. For instance the federal government may be dishing out money to improve facilities for toddlers and also for irrigation. So we get a playground plonked in the middle, still with no shade provided, and a lot of upheaval to put in state of the art irrigation. Our estate is built on reclaimed swamp land. It has a high water table, the grass has never needed watering. We have plenty of teenagers with no resources to speak of but no toddlers  Sound familiar? We do need a copper because some of that teen energy is being directed negatively. We keep getting mail boxes vandalised, cars stolen, and bottles broken on the footpath. We pay our taxes (for a police force) to the federal government who give some back to the state government,(after spending it on setting up a polce force bureacracy and big advertising campaigns to let us know what they might do) who decide how to spend it; after setting up their own bureacracy and advertising funds. The State government decides that the most marginal metropolitan seats are in need of more police even though our regional city has practically no police force at all. We've voted the same for the last sixty years. Sound familiar? A lot more decisions need to be taken by local people. A lot more of our taxes need to stay where they are collected. the real problem with your idea is the presumption that the people's ideas wil be passed up the line. After all you lot cheered when Oakshott and Windsor did preceisely the opposite. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

The assertion that Oakshott and Windsor went against the wishes of their electorate is just that, you have no evidence. In anycase that's the structure of the world we have. It's not a point of comparison with a suggestion for a structure that we might have. I also desire a world where farming doesn't involve saturating everything we eat with chemicals. Surely you don't consider me a hypocrite for eating anyway?

Grey wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 3:22pm: Grey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 12:49pm: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:58am: Grey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:39am: Rudd had the overwhelming support of the people. So did Hitler. It's amazing that Gillard received the most support ever in a spill, regardless of the support Rudd has in the community. Marginal back benches voted against their own interests. It highlights what I often point out. People are voting for candidates they don't KNOW from a bar of soap. They are voting for gang members. Real parlimentary reform would involve the abolition of parties and factions. Rather than the current vogue for amalgamating local government, we should be looking at adding a tier. The BLOCK! local blocks of something like 1 -  200 homes electing representatives that forward their views to WARD level and ward representatives who elect their most capable members to go on to Local/state and federal levels. this would be a system that stops the tail wagging the dog. The members of the Labor Caucus KNEW personally the people they were voting for. And so for that matter did the Liberal opposition. They've made it quite clear that they'd prefer Rudd to be leading Labor  :D You mean a bit like Russia under the communist system? That didn't seem to work out all that well for them. Needless to say, I disagree with you on that Grey. I think all that system does is create more politicians whose only job will be to do whatever it takes to get themselves re-elected. You and I will lose whatever little true representation we have. That's the big objection isn't it?  ;D Look under Communism that tail wagged the dog and the tail was very strong indeed. People didn't set up their local 'Soviets', the Bolsheviks did. The Bolsheviks decided who was going to run and be in the Soviets and for a start that was card carrying party members only. What I am suggesting isn't that. Throughout human political history the structure has been decided from the top. The evolutionary trend is towards the decentralising of power. Giving more to the people and increasing the voting franchise to all the people. But the TOP has only grudgingly given away as little as possible. What I am suggesting is reversing the current of power. Not 'power to the people', but 'power from the people'. That's Democracy proper. Let's look at practical matters in a hypothetical. Our block has a 10 acre park. It's all grass with a couple of peppermint trees down one end. Our needs are for a cycleway around the perimetre for children to learn bike riding away from roads. We need A space for cricket and football, other spaces for frisby throwing, we want to be able to use the park for overflow parking (when we have a party) and some older people would like a flower garden. We all want more shade. A barbeque and gazebo would be nice too. Right now we don't get to discuss what happens to that park. We have no mechanism for discussing it amongst ourselves. From time to time council might decide to do something and that may well conflict with our actual needs. For instance the federal government may be dishing out money to improve facilities for toddlers and also for irrigation. So we get a playground plonked in the middle, still with no shade provided, and a lot of upheaval to put in state of the art irrigation. Our estate is built on reclaimed swamp land. It has a high water table, the grass has never needed watering. We have plenty of teenagers with no resources to speak of but no toddlers  Sound familiar? We do need a copper because some of that teen energy is being directed negatively. We keep getting mail boxes vandalised, cars stolen, and bottles broken on the footpath. We pay our taxes (for a police force) to the federal government who give some back to the state government,(after spending it on setting up a polce force bureacracy and big advertising campaigns to let us know what they might do) who decide how to spend it; after setting up their own bureacracy and advertising funds. The State government decides that the most marginal metropolitan seats are in need of more police even though our regional city has practically no police force at all. We've voted the same for the last sixty years. Sound familiar? A lot more decisions need to be taken by local people. A lot more of our taxes need to stay where they are collected. the real problem with your idea is the presumption that the people's ideas wil be passed up the line. After all you lot cheered when Oakshott and Windsor did preceisely the opposite. MAKE UP YOUR MIND! The assertion that Oakshott and Windsor went against the wishes of their electorate is just that, you have no evidence. In anycase that's the structure of the world we have. It's not a point of comparison with a suggestion for a structure that we might have. I also desire a world where farming doesn't involve saturating everything we eat with chemicals. Surely you don't consider me a hypocrite for eating anyway?

Its all about sour grapes...if Abbott had been more professional instead of trying to bribe them to get onside when he was trying to lure the independents he would prob be the PM. The dimwitted way the Nats treated the independents also went a long way to deciding where Oakshott and Windsor went.
In short...Abbott only has himself to blame for Oakshott and Windsors decisions.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:54am: Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:36am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:25am: Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:12am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:06am: Gist wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:03am: Onya Jools! I never had any doubt that it would turn out otherwise. Now that that rubbish is out of the way, can we get on with some good policy? Now its all up the Gillard, if she cant wipe the floor with Abbott now the boils been lanced she doesnt deserve to be there. I suspect Abbotts days are now numbered Do you really believe she can beat Abbott. Delusional much? The only hope the ALP had at the next election was a Rudd PM. Rubbish. Ever since Hawke, Labor seems to think they need some messiah to win elections. Whereas what they really need is discipline in the ranks to show a united front, good policies and the skill to sell them. So far they get half a tick on policies and no tick at all for the other two. Gillards standings in the polls seem to beg to differ. Are you talking about preferred PM? You do realise that that measure doesn't mean much other than to give the media something to fill fish'n'chip wrappers with don't you? PPM seems to matter to you lot a great deal - whenever Gillard is in front. When abbot is in front it is 'meaningless'. now for the record, the measure IS meaningless, but not just when abbott is behind.

Hah! You must get so sick of being wrong - I doubt I've ever quoted PPM. Go search it yourself and prove me wrong if you like. In fact I barely look at it to tell the truth.

Verge wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Since the 2010 election an ALP lead by Gillard has yet to be infront of the Coalition on 2PP. Why do you think that is considering under Rudd the Coalition were never in front.

I think there are a number of reasons really. Some of them are to do with Gillard herself and the seeming inability of Labor to sell food to a starving man. Some of them are to do with Rudd and the ongoing background destabilisation which was going on. Some of them are to do with Abbot who, to give him his due, has been able to run an effective ongoing popularist, negative campaign.

But that last one is fast running out of puff. The second one has now been dealt with and the first one... well... we'll see. I did notice Gillard acknowledge last week that she had spent too much time in negotiating things within the parliament and not enough time in selling the party and its policies to the people. We'll have to wait to see if there's a change on that front and how effective it will be.

Gist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:

Verge wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 4:31pm: Since the 2010 election an ALP lead by Gillard has yet to be infront of the Coalition on 2PP. Why do you think that is considering under Rudd the Coalition were never in front. I think there are a number of reasons really. Some of them are to do with Gillard herself and the seeming inability of Labor to sell food to a starving man. Some of them are to do with Rudd and the ongoing background destabilisation which was going on. Some of them are to do with Abbot who, to give him his due, has been able to run an effective ongoing popularist, negative campaign. But that last one is fast running out of puff. The second one has now been dealt with and the first one... well... we'll see. I did notice Gillard acknowledge last week that she had spent too much time in negotiating things within the parliament and not enough time in selling the party and its policies to the people. We'll have to wait to see if there's a change on that front and how effective it will be.

You know it could be Gillard strategy. There's no point, (she might reason) in selling to an electorate that don't have anything to spend for years. She's got the things done and closer to the election she'll have something to crow about.

Meanwhile Abbott has the stage to do the same performance over and over again until people are sick to the teeth of listening to the old wind bag. Again, when you're in a race velocity at the end is everything. And it's a lot easier to look good when you start your run way back in the field.

____ wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:20pm: ____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:17pm: Frances wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:12pm: ____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:08pm: And Childless is not sexist because males can be childless too ... are you , by pretending offence, actually the sexist party here. Men have just as much right to be protected from sexism as anyone else. But this sort of attack is invariably directed at females. No it isn't and by making this remark shows your inverted male sexist attitude. You can't just lift up women by trying to drag down men. lol Gillard getting back in has really made you loopy. You go on as if you and your commie greens party are the champions of women and minorities. Frauds is all you greenies are. Next thing you are going to say is turning boats around is the right thing to do lol Greens are the champions of equality ... our policies and actions prove this. Thats why we don't have an agenda to torture children in refugee prison camps overseas ... unlike the old parties.

You would rather they die, running the gauntlet.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 5:36pm:

____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:20pm: ____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:17pm: Frances wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:12pm: ____ wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 1:08pm: And Childless is not sexist because males can be childless too ... are you , by pretending offence, actually the sexist party here. Men have just as much right to be protected from sexism as anyone else. But this sort of attack is invariably directed at females. No it isn't and by making this remark shows your inverted male sexist attitude. You can't just lift up women by trying to drag down men. lol Gillard getting back in has really made you loopy. You go on as if you and your commie greens party are the champions of women and minorities. Frauds is all you greenies are. Next thing you are going to say is turning boats around is the right thing to do lol Greens are the champions of equality ... our policies and actions prove this. Thats why we don't have an agenda to torture children in refugee prison camps overseas ... unlike the old parties. You would rather they die, running the gauntlet.

Of Abbott turning around all the boats?

Greens are planning for Abbott to never be in a position to enact such draconian orders.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

Its all about sour grapes...if Abbott had been more professional instead of trying to bribe them to get onside when he was trying to lure the independents he would prob be the PM. The dimwitted way the Nats treated the independents also went a long way to deciding where Oakshott and Windsor went. In short...Abbott only has himself to blame for Oakshott and Windsors decisions.

...if Abbott had been more professional instead of trying to bribe them to get onside when he was trying to lure the independents he would prob be the PM.

No I don't think so - I feel that from the independents point of view they had probably identified over a decade ago that Mr Abbott is not suitable to ever lead Australia.

Tnoy was always going to have a big problem getting support from anyone outside the party.

In this case all the independents had left the conservatives because they had problems with their direction and dogma and they were all extreemly disenchanted with the Nationals.

Adding it up for them to support the conservatives was probably not a realistic expectation, to do this they would of had to make the choice they believed to be worst for Australia.

I spent a fair bit of time last night chatting to a mate who works in Canberra.
He's a civil servant and neither a Liberal nor a Labor person and has worked on policy for both Howard and Rudd's Governments.

His view is pretty well informed when I listen to him and I thought he had a few decent points.

1) Rudd has an ego the size of Africa and will not have taken on Gillard to be soundly beaten (remember I spoke to him yesterday before the result).

2) He reckoned Rudd would be soundly beaten but the aim here was to chip away at the strength of Gillard.

3) Gillard can't communicate with the people. Very popular in cabinet, she apparently speaks really well in closed door discussions and opens the room to debate really well. Hence the view in Canberra as to how well liked she is - yet puzzled as to why she can't do it with the people.

4) Rudd is apparently (and I didn't know this) - a keen studier of long term strategic warfare and historical military campaigns etc.

5) The view in Canberra is that Rudd has worked that he'll challenge now, get his intentions out there, get beaten, see Gillard not able to turn it around, get beaten by Abbott then Abbott would come to power.

6) Rudd, the belief is, will then work out that the Labor Party would come to him and ask him to take on Abbott given his excellent record and what a disaster they will have been in the next election.

7) Rudd, the long term strategist, will calculate he can again be PM, on his terms, in 4 years time.

I thought it was really interesting to hear his view that Rudd will see this as the first part of a 4 part campaign.

The key now (which is out of Rudd's hands) is if Gillard can somehow rescue her dire polling.

I personally don't think she can.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:57am:

Kat wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 9:54am: Well, there goes Labor. And there goes the country after the next election. I'm off to renew my passport...... Singapore's a nice place to live and theres none of this election crap every 5 minutes, you can rent one of our apartments out by the river if you like   :)

Just don't worry about that little thing called personal freedom or freedom of speech.

It is a classic case of Asia at its very worst.

A nation of robots beaten into line by the State.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 7:55pm:

I spent a fair bit of time last night chatting to a mate who works in Canberra. He's a civil servant and neither a Liberal nor a Labor person and has worked on policy for both Howard and Rudd's Governments. His view is pretty well informed when I listen to him and I thought he had a few decent points. 1) Rudd has an ego the size of Africa and will not have taken on Gillard to be soundly beaten (remember I spoke to him yesterday before the result). 2) He reckoned Rudd would be soundly beaten but the aim here was to chip away at the strength of Gillard. 3) Gillard can't communicate with the people. Very popular in cabinet, she apparently speaks really well in closed door discussions and opens the room to debate really well. Hence the view in Canberra as to how well liked she is - yet puzzled as to why she can't do it with the people. 4) Rudd is apparently (and I didn't know this) - a keen studier of long term strategic warfare and historical military campaigns etc. 5) The view in Canberra is that Rudd has worked that he'll challenge now, get his intentions out there, get beaten, see Gillard not able to turn it around, get beaten by Abbott then Abbott would come to power. 6) Rudd, the belief is, will then work out that the Labor Party would come to him and ask him to take on Abbott given his excellent record and what a disaster they will have been in the next election. 7) Rudd, the long term strategist, will calculate he can again be PM, on his terms, in 4 years time. I thought it was really interesting to hear his view that Rudd will see this as the first part of a 4 part campaign. The key now (which is out of Rudd's hands) is if Gillard can somehow rescue her dire polling. I personally don't think she can.

Totally agree with your mate's assessment.

Rudd has at the earliest 1 year. In that time 3 things need to happen. Rudd needs to shut his mouth, try to manage his congenitally pathological ego and Gillard needs to poll badly in Feb 2013.

While he may barely manage to achieve the first, the second will not be possible for him... Giiven this whole drama has been driven by his innate sociopathy.

The 70/30 defeat was a stage managed result by the Labor caucus to throw him a bone and keep an option open.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 12:03am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 7:55pm: I spent a fair bit of time last night chatting to a mate who works in Canberra. He's a civil servant and neither a Liberal nor a Labor person and has worked on policy for both Howard and Rudd's Governments. His view is pretty well informed when I listen to him and I thought he had a few decent points. 1) Rudd has an ego the size of Africa and will not have taken on Gillard to be soundly beaten (remember I spoke to him yesterday before the result). 2) He reckoned Rudd would be soundly beaten but the aim here was to chip away at the strength of Gillard. 3) Gillard can't communicate with the people. Very popular in cabinet, she apparently speaks really well in closed door discussions and opens the room to debate really well. Hence the view in Canberra as to how well liked she is - yet puzzled as to why she can't do it with the people. 4) Rudd is apparently (and I didn't know this) - a keen studier of long term strategic warfare and historical military campaigns etc. 5) The view in Canberra is that Rudd has worked that he'll challenge now, get his intentions out there, get beaten, see Gillard not able to turn it around, get beaten by Abbott then Abbott would come to power. 6) Rudd, the belief is, will then work out that the Labor Party would come to him and ask him to take on Abbott given his excellent record and what a disaster they will have been in the next election. 7) Rudd, the long term strategist, will calculate he can again be PM, on his terms, in 4 years time. I thought it was really interesting to hear his view that Rudd will see this as the first part of a 4 part campaign. The key now (which is out of Rudd's hands) is if Gillard can somehow rescue her dire polling. I personally don't think she can. Totally agree with your mate's assessment. Rudd has at the earliest 1 year. In that time 3 things need to happen. Rudd needs to shut his mouth, try to manage his congenitally pathological ego and Gillard needs to poll badly in Feb 2013. While he may barely manage to achieve the first, the second will not be possible for him... Giiven this whole drama has been driven by his innate sociopathy. The 70/30 defeat was a stage managed result by the Labor caucus to throw him a bone and keep an option open.

With the biggest winning margin in a spill in history Gillard is as solid as Uluru. The question Liberals ought to be asking themselves is why they hang on to the waning flame of Tony Abbott rather than go with the immensley popular Mal Turnbull.

thats a fair statement Grey.

A reasonable assessment, and I don't know why Abbott has ANY popularity,  :-?

Could there really be a machiavellian Lib , behind the scene, letting Tony muff it every time, and now, with the load of bollocks moved out of the way of Labor, might this mystery third person appear on the scene.???????

Well, I think he's always been there, and has let Abbott take the hits, so he can step in , reasonably soon now, and head the Libs.

I still think Prime Minister J Gillard has what it takes, regardless.
Turnbull will find he is in a fight to the end. And Gillard has what it takes to WIN.

:) :)Go Gillard.!!!!!!!  :) :) :)

Grey wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 12:51am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 12:03am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 7:55pm: I spent a fair bit of time last night chatting to a mate who works in Canberra. He's a civil servant and neither a Liberal nor a Labor person and has worked on policy for both Howard and Rudd's Governments. His view is pretty well informed when I listen to him and I thought he had a few decent points. 1) Rudd has an ego the size of Africa and will not have taken on Gillard to be soundly beaten (remember I spoke to him yesterday before the result). 2) He reckoned Rudd would be soundly beaten but the aim here was to chip away at the strength of Gillard. 3) Gillard can't communicate with the people. Very popular in cabinet, she apparently speaks really well in closed door discussions and opens the room to debate really well. Hence the view in Canberra as to how well liked she is - yet puzzled as to why she can't do it with the people. 4) Rudd is apparently (and I didn't know this) - a keen studier of long term strategic warfare and historical military campaigns etc. 5) The view in Canberra is that Rudd has worked that he'll challenge now, get his intentions out there, get beaten, see Gillard not able to turn it around, get beaten by Abbott then Abbott would come to power. 6) Rudd, the belief is, will then work out that the Labor Party would come to him and ask him to take on Abbott given his excellent record and what a disaster they will have been in the next election. 7) Rudd, the long term strategist, will calculate he can again be PM, on his terms, in 4 years time. I thought it was really interesting to hear his view that Rudd will see this as the first part of a 4 part campaign. The key now (which is out of Rudd's hands) is if Gillard can somehow rescue her dire polling. I personally don't think she can. Totally agree with your mate's assessment. Rudd has at the earliest 1 year. In that time 3 things need to happen. Rudd needs to shut his mouth, try to manage his congenitally pathological ego and Gillard needs to poll badly in Feb 2013. While he may barely manage to achieve the first, the second will not be possible for him... Giiven this whole drama has been driven by his innate sociopathy. The 70/30 defeat was a stage managed result by the Labor caucus to throw him a bone and keep an option open. With the biggest winning margin in a spill in history Gillard is as solid as Uluru. The question Liberals ought to be asking themselves is why they hang on to the waning flame of Tony Abbott rather than go with the immensley popular Mal Turnbull.

Where do you get the idea that Turnbull is popular amough Liberal voters..... most Libs can't stand him!!

Bit like the Fudd saga....... why would libs put him in power only to throw him out mid term.

Abbort is Liberals leader....... that is what the lib voters want.
We don't want a labor leader for the liberal govt!!!!

here do you get the idea that Turnbull is popular amough Liberal voters..... most Libs can't stand him!!

Bit like the Fudd saga....... why would libs put him in power only to throw him out mid term.

Abbort is Liberals leader....... that is what the lib voters want.
We don't want a labor leader for the liberal govt!!!!



I was thinking the same thing... havent seen any polls on Abbott v Turnbull..

Malc is popular with the lefties for some unknown reason.. I think they want him to jump ship to be honest..LOL they are so stuck for a leader it isnt even funny..

but if they can stir up trouble in the Lib camp... why not! anything to take the eye off the mess in the labor camp.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 6:32am:

here do you get the idea that Turnbull is popular amough Liberal voters..... most Libs can't stand him!! Bit like the Fudd saga....... why would libs put him in power only to throw him out mid term. Abbort is Liberals leader....... that is what the lib voters want. We don't want a labor leader for the liberal govt!!!! I was thinking the same thing... havent seen any polls on Abbott v Turnbull.. Malc is popular with the lefties for some unknown reason.. I think they want him to jump ship to be honest..LOL they are so stuck for a leader it isnt even funny.. but if they can stir up trouble in the Lib camp... why not! anything to take the eye off the mess in the labor camp.

Quite right. Turnbull is a dud so stay with Abbott. Tony is the MAN!! He'll see you right in 2013, no worries. Yep, no doubt about it.

Grey wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 12:51am:

With the biggest winning margin in a spill in history Gillard is as solid as Uluru.

Leaving aside for the moment she has led her party to the worst polling in the history of opinion polls and led the party to lose its majority after a solitary term of office.

Also leave aside she has never received a mandate to govern from the Australian people.

Leaving all of that aside, yeah, she's as safe as houses.
:)

Gist is saying stuff - smart eh? Well OK ....leave Boots there..lets see . :) ;D

Its Politics.!!

Gillard is as safe as the next poll results. Rudd's retreat is far from a done deal of defeat.

With Turnbull being popular with Non Liberal voters, isn't that how elections are won ... winning the hearts and minds of the non core support.

Would rusted on liberal supporters here stop voting liberal, if Mal was leading, and vote Greens, Independents, or Gillard?

Cods?

[quote ]
Where do you get the idea that Turnbull is popular amough Liberal voters..... most Libs can't stand him!!

[/quote]


strange. :o..... guess that's why the perception persists.  And of course you speak for most liberal voters, so you would know. ::)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 8:48am:

Grey wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 12:51am: With the biggest winning margin in a spill in history Gillard is as solid as Uluru. Leaving aside for the moment she has led her party to the worst polling in the history of opinion polls and led the party to lose its majority after a solitary term of office. Also leave aside she has never received a mandate to govern from the Australian people. Leaving all of that aside, yeah, she's as safe as houses. :)

That's right! That's my point. The people that know and work with her and rely on her DO leave those things aside and back her all the way. The support Gillard has received from the parlimentary party defines 'staunch'.

Grey wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 7:03pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 8:48am: Grey wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 12:51am: With the biggest winning margin in a spill in history Gillard is as solid as Uluru. Leaving aside for the moment she has led her party to the worst polling in the history of opinion polls and led the party to lose its majority after a solitary term of office. Also leave aside she has never received a mandate to govern from the Australian people. Leaving all of that aside, yeah, she's as safe as houses. :) That's right! That's my point. The people that know and work with her and rely on her DO leave those things aside and back her all the way. The support Gillard has received from the parlimentary party defines 'staunch'.

Problem is mate, in a General Election there are slightly more people than the Labor Party caucus voting....

At this point in time Labor are staring at an outright humiliation with this idiot in charge.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 7:48pm:

Grey wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 7:03pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 8:48am: Grey wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 12:51am: With the biggest winning margin in a spill in history Gillard is as solid as Uluru. Leaving aside for the moment she has led her party to the worst polling in the history of opinion polls and led the party to lose its majority after a solitary term of office. Also leave aside she has never received a mandate to govern from the Australian people. Leaving all of that aside, yeah, she's as safe as houses. :) That's right! That's my point. The people that know and work with her and rely on her DO leave those things aside and back her all the way. The support Gillard has received from the parlimentary party defines 'staunch'. Problem is mate, in a General Election there are slightly more people than the Labor Party caucus voting.... At this point in time Labor are staring at an outright humiliation with this idiot in charge.

Yep they're stareing right across the chamber at the idiot in charge ;D

Grey wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 12:51am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 12:03am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 7:55pm: I spent a fair bit of time last night chatting to a mate who works in Canberra. He's a civil servant and neither a Liberal nor a Labor person and has worked on policy for both Howard and Rudd's Governments. His view is pretty well informed when I listen to him and I thought he had a few decent points. 1) Rudd has an ego the size of Africa and will not have taken on Gillard to be soundly beaten (remember I spoke to him yesterday before the result). 2) He reckoned Rudd would be soundly beaten but the aim here was to chip away at the strength of Gillard. 3) Gillard can't communicate with the people. Very popular in cabinet, she apparently speaks really well in closed door discussions and opens the room to debate really well. Hence the view in Canberra as to how well liked she is - yet puzzled as to why she can't do it with the people. 4) Rudd is apparently (and I didn't know this) - a keen studier of long term strategic warfare and historical military campaigns etc. 5) The view in Canberra is that Rudd has worked that he'll challenge now, get his intentions out there, get beaten, see Gillard not able to turn it around, get beaten by Abbott then Abbott would come to power. 6) Rudd, the belief is, will then work out that the Labor Party would come to him and ask him to take on Abbott given his excellent record and what a disaster they will have been in the next election. 7) Rudd, the long term strategist, will calculate he can again be PM, on his terms, in 4 years time. I thought it was really interesting to hear his view that Rudd will see this as the first part of a 4 part campaign. The key now (which is out of Rudd's hands) is if Gillard can somehow rescue her dire polling. I personally don't think she can. Totally agree with your mate's assessment. Rudd has at the earliest 1 year. In that time 3 things need to happen. Rudd needs to shut his mouth, try to manage his congenitally pathological ego and Gillard needs to poll badly in Feb 2013. While he may barely manage to achieve the first, the second will not be possible for him... Giiven this whole drama has been driven by his innate sociopathy. The 70/30 defeat was a stage managed result by the Labor caucus to throw him a bone and keep an option open. With the biggest winning margin in a spill in history Gillard is as solid as Uluru. The question Liberals ought to be asking themselves is why they hang on to the waning flame of Tony Abbott rather than go with the immensley popular Mal Turnbull.

If her results stay where they are or get worse she may get to the next election because no one other than Rudd will put their hand up to get a belting at the polls. She loses, which she will, she gets promptly dumped and someone other than Kevvie slips into the chair.