Hartcher, always a decent writer. His book on the Howard election remains one of the best I have read.

++++++++++++

Labor has overwhelmingly endorsed the candidate of the unions and the party machine over the candidate of the people.

For a political party that has been super-sensitive to opinion polls in the past, it was a remarkable rejection of the public will.

The people consistently prefer Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard as Labor leader by a factor of about two to one. But Labor has gone the other way by a factor of more than two to one. For a party that is on a steady trajectory to electoral defeat, it was an extraordinary act of steely resolve. Or suicidal madness.

Under the Gillard leadership, Labor lost its parliamentary majority and then proceeded consistently to register the lowest primary vote on record.

And the only polling figures to shift in the past week beyond the margin of error was Gillard’s approval rating.

Yet the vote of 71 to 31 for Gillard suggests that Rudd, on net, has failed to win over any votes since last week. Even more remarkably, he has failed to win any votes since losing the leadership 20 months ago.

Some names have moved from one column to the other on the caucus voting lists, but, on a net basis, the caucus has shown itself to be deeply entrenched in defending Gillard.

This is a violation of one of the customary laws of leadership challenges – that the challenger carries momentum.

The repudiation of Rudd reflects three forces.

First, it illustrates the power of the Labor institutional infrastructure of unions and their caucus outgrowth, the factions. Not one trade union supported Rudd.

Second, it shows the visceral personal dislike for Rudd in the caucus. The great bulk of the caucus would rather protect its comfortable working conditions under Gillard than choose a difficult leader more likely to deliver an election win.

Third, it demonstrates a commitment to continue to deliver its existing agenda. Oddly enough, it is largely an agenda drafted by Rudd.

The 40-vote margin compares with a 22-vote margin in Paul Keating’s first and failed strike at Bob Hawke. So Rudd faces a much bigger task to win in any second challenge. It would take a very dramatic shift to move 22 votes.


-Peter Hartcher
Sydney Morning Herald Political Editor

just what is meant by the will of the people???.

dont tell me a POLL taken from about 1200 people is now whats known as the WILL OF THE PEOPLE..

I hardly think so.. to me the will of the people is at the voting box.. and nowhere else.

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:18pm:

I hardly think so.. to me the will of the people is at the voting box.. and nowhere else.

Kevin Rudd is the only Labor leader to have won an election in 16 years cods.

He has never lost an election and never been removed by the people.

THE HOWARD ERA GOT SPAT ON BY THE WHOLE OF THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORATE BAR NONE!!

I'LL TELL YOU AGAIN,... BAR NONE!

I DON'T KNOW ONE CRACK SMOKER WHO STILL TALKS ABOUT JOHN HOWARD LIKE THEY USED TO BACK IN THE BAD OLD DAYS OF PRETENDING YOUR DEALER WAS TOUGHER THAN THE ONE DOWN THE STREET!!
TRUE  M-:-[ :-[ f()*&%'N-STORY PAL!  :o :o

Cods, this part of the SMH political column puts it in a nutshell.


Gillard's central problem is that she is widely considered illegitimate and all polling for a year suggests she's unelectable;

Rudd's main problem is that most of the caucus would rather lose government than work under him.

The Prime Minister is unacceptable to the people; the alternative leader is unacceptable to the people who choose the prime minister.

Or, as a Labor Party official put it yesterday: "She'll still be illegitimate and he'll still be a bastard."

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

Cods, this part of the SMH political column puts it in a nutshell. Gillard's central problem is that she is widely considered illegitimate and all polling for a year suggests she's unelectable; Rudd's main problem is that most of the caucus would rather lose government than work under him. The Prime Minister is unacceptable to the people; the alternative leader is unacceptable to the people who choose the prime minister. Or, as a Labor Party official put it yesterday: "She'll still be illegitimate and he'll still be a bastard."

rubbish... she was elected in 2010... if she hadnt gone to an election I would agree with you but she did...the fact is it was a hugn vote.. and she was able to look the independents in the eye and make deals knowing full well that if she didnt want to go ahead with them.. she would find a way...


ask Wilkie.. and Slipper...

the thing is do we elect a PM or a Party?????

come on which is it????


the left on here whinge constantly about policies yet you are saying we only vote for the leader and not their policies..

Totally agree Cods.

The 'cause celebrite' falls before the commonsense of the people.  And the polls ....huh?? Run by media, that are owned by a couple of rich Ozzies.

Because, ministers,...- elected representatives SPEAK for their ELECTORATE.

My belief in the common sense and decency of Australians, as represented by the members who voted today, is happily shored up today. :) :)

Emma wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Totally agree Cods. The 'cause celebrite' falls before the commonsense of the people.  And the polls ....huh?? Run by media, that are owned by a couple of rich Ozzies. Because, ministers,...- elected representatives SPEAK for their ELECTORATE. My belief in the common sense and decency of Australians, as represented by the members who voted today, is happily shored up today. :) :)

do you think it will happen though????

seems to me its all about them... got nothing to do with the people or what they like or want..

its more about them hanging on to their jobs..

I mean just under a 3rd of her members dont want her..

she has been there for 18 months now..and I think thats an increase on how many didnt want rudd in June 2010.

so not only are the polls against her.. but also her own members are losing faith in her.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

The repudiation of Rudd reflects three forces. First, it illustrates the power of the Labor institutional infrastructure of unions and their caucus outgrowth, the factions. Not one trade union supported Rudd. Second, it shows the visceral personal dislike for Rudd in the caucus. The great bulk of the caucus would rather protect its comfortable working conditions under Gillard than choose a difficult leader more likely to deliver an election win. Third, it demonstrates a commitment to continue to deliver its existing agenda. Oddly enough, it is largely an agenda drafted by Rudd. The 40-vote margin compares with a 22-vote margin in Paul Keating’s first and failed strike at Bob Hawke. So Rudd faces a much bigger task to win in any second challenge. It would take a very dramatic shift to move 22 votes. -Peter Hartcher Sydney Morning Herald Political Editor

First
Makes you wonder why they didn't. Given Arbib was instrumental in removing Rudd - his resignation and comments makes you wonder if a deal was made between Rudd and Gillard. On a day when Arbib should celebrate - he resigns.

No doubt Rudd is bitter. Perhaps Arbib's resignation was a deal so Rudd would not challenge again. Swan has said Rudd has put his self interest ahead that of the country. So it's conceivable that Arbib took one for the team.


Two
This was evident in the comments from a QLD ALP MP. They would rather lose their seat than go back working with Rudd. At the start of Rudd's term there are plenty of noise coming from his office about his bully boy tactics with many of his staff resigning. The ALP voters thought this was sour grapes. But today's votes shows that he's a sadistic person to work for


Third
That's the irony of it all. It must kill Rudd to sit in the backbench to see them try to deliver his policies. His ego would be killing him


In order to move the 22 votes - he needed to come out before today and say he's changed. Instead he comes out and tell people that he's learnt from his mistakes. This is a double edge answer. it could mean that he knows who stabbed him in the back and won't make that mistake again or he's learnt from his tyrant ways and is prepared to change. Obviously they took his words to mean he will take revenge on them

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 8:24pm: Cods, this part of the SMH political column puts it in a nutshell. Gillard's central problem is that she is widely considered illegitimate and all polling for a year suggests she's unelectable; Rudd's main problem is that most of the caucus would rather lose government than work under him. The Prime Minister is unacceptable to the people; the alternative leader is unacceptable to the people who choose the prime minister. Or, as a Labor Party official put it yesterday: "She'll still be illegitimate and he'll still be a bastard." rubbish... she was elected in 2010... if she hadnt gone to an election I would agree with you but she did...the fact is it was a hugn vote.. and she was able to look the independents in the eye and make deals knowing full well that if she didnt want to go ahead with them.. she would find a way... ask Wilkie.. and Slipper... the thing is do we elect a PM or a Party????? come on which is it???? the left on here whinge constantly about policies yet you are saying we only vote for the leader and not their policies..

But the vote she won was based on the carbon tax lie

I don't agree Cods.
I think the members that voted for her, The Prime Minister Julia Gillard, know a lot a lot more about who  Rudd and Gillard truly are. 
That the PM garnered more than 70% support can hardly be called a vote indicating a lack of confidence. :) 

get over it Maqqa

Emma wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:08pm:

I don't agree Cods. I think the members that voted for her, The Prime Minister Julia Gillard, know a lot a lot more about who  Rudd and Gillard truly are.  That the PM garnered more than 70% support can hardly be called a vote indicating a lack of confidence. :)

I don't know how the Caucus could vote for either of them.

cods wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:18pm:

just what is meant by the will of the people???. dont tell me a POLL taken from about 1200 people is now whats known as the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.. I hardly think so.. to me the will of the people is at the voting box.. and nowhere else.

I agree - I hardly think the majority of voters out there want to see a return to Rudd the Dudd. He is the reason Labor has so many policy headaches.

good grief you agree.!!  Good on ya

The title of this topic seems to suggest that the person who created it is suprised. Why would one be suprised that Labor has not listened to the will of the people, no matter how stupid they are to want Rudd back? Labor never listened to the people before (case in point: carbon tax), so why would they start listening now when it's obvious they haven't a hope in hell of winning the next election?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:07pm:

But the vote she won was based on the carbon tax lie

The stupid statment she made 2 days before the election probably cost her votes.

cost her votes when?
In Caucus today?
In the prev election? which resulted in a Minority govt.?Albeit with Gillard as leader?

That is frankly ALL pretty irrelevant NOW.!!!

If you want to , any of you can continue this mindlessly boring attack on Labor, and Gillard! ::)
Wouldn't it be 'smarter' to wait till the next election?

But = IT IS done - lets move forward. Give up your hatred and bitterness, all . For the GOOD of us all, support  only a united Australia. !!  We simply MUST, if we want to survive the coming 20-30 yrs.

Especially a country  of our size, resources, and relatively sparse pop.
If we continue to allow spiteful badspeak (eg. aka Abbott) and unproductive propaganda ( aka Oz media) to create our persona in national and INTERNATIONAL view, we lose BIG TIME.

RIPE PICKINGS.!!!   I'd say, arm the citizens to repel the..!? 

SUPPORT THE NEGATIVES LEARNT IN THE LAST DECADE, and you invite chaos , dissension, and eventually obliteration. (NOT overly dramatic... a poss. future.)

WE are a small POPULACE in a large and desirable Continent. WE SHOULD ALL WORK to achieve positive outcomes, else our comfy lives may be a past dream..

I don't intend to reply to any more muck- raking. !! on this issue.

Those hogs who like wallowing in past miseries,  I couldn't care less.!@!!!!!!
But KNOW what side your bread is buttered on.! 8-)

Julia Gillard has about 9 - 12 months to turn the dismal pollings around.

She's led a party to lose a majority after just a term of office - very rare.

She's led the ALP to the lowest polling since opinion polls began.

She does not enjoy the confidence or support of the people at large.

BUT for varied reasons - she does enjoy the support of Trade Unions and Factions in the Labor Party.



It is up to her whether she survives or falls......

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

Julia Gillard has about 9 - 12 months to turn the dismal pollings around. She's led a party to lose a majority after just a term of office - very rare. She's led the ALP to the lowest polling since opinion polls began. She does not enjoy the confidence or support of the people at large. BUT for varied reasons - she does enjoy the support of Trade Unions and Factions in the Labor Party. It is up to her whether she survives or falls......

Andrei,
If she can stop lying she might win.
People are sick of her constant lies.

Labour will be in with a fighting chance if they can prove they have abandoned insane economic incentive killing middle class welfare.  Prove they are the first party to stop the persecution of the blue collar workers, the pensioners and disabled and they stand a fighting chance.  Too many "middle income fatcats" living off wealth stolen off the productive classes. 8-) 8-) 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:23pm:

Labour will be in with a fighting chance if they can prove they have abandoned insane economic incentive killing middle class welfare.  Prove they are the first party to stop the persecution of the blue collar workers, the pensioners and disabled and they stand a fighting chance.  Too many "middle income fatcats" living off wealth stolen off the productive classes. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Whitey - stop blaming other people for your problems.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 11:30pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 11:23pm: Labour will be in with a fighting chance if they can prove they have abandoned insane economic incentive killing middle class welfare.  Prove they are the first party to stop the persecution of the blue collar workers, the pensioners and disabled and they stand a fighting chance.  Too many "middle income fatcats" living off wealth stolen off the productive classes. 8-) 8-) 8-) Whitey - stop blaming other people for your problems.

Stop ripping money off the productive classes and killing incentive in the economy...Nobody can be forced to take a casual job when they want secure employment and nobody can be forced to work more than a 38hr week or on weekends just to subsidize middle class welfare entitlements - these are the facts and they are non negotiable - live with it - the pendulum is already swinging away from your economic vandalism. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Topic Summary - Displaying 15 post(s). Click here to show all 
Posted by: corporate_whitey   Posted on: Yesterday at 11:48pm
bobbythebat1 wrote Yesterday at 11:30pm:

corporate_whitey wrote Yesterday at 11:23pm:

Labour will be in with a fighting chance if they can prove they have abandoned insane economic incentive killing middle class welfare.  Prove they are the first party to stop the persecution of the blue collar workers, the pensioners and disabled and they stand a fighting chance.  Too many "middle income fatcats" living off wealth stolen off the productive classes.   

Whitey - stop blaming other people for your problems.

Stop ripping money off the productive classes and killing incentive in the economy...Nobody can be forced to take a casual job when they want secure employment and nobody can be forced to work more than a 38hr week or on weekends just to subsidize middle class welfare entitlements - these are the facts and they are non negotiable - live with it - the pendulum is already swinging away from your economic vandalism.    


Yes CW !!  lets think positive.....I don't consider your posts as muck-raking.! :) ;) you point to the truth, the real.

Bat Brain on the other /other hand...take it like a man.!!!!!!  :)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

Julia Gillard has about 9 - 12 months to turn the dismal pollings around. She's led a party to lose a majority after just a term of office - very rare. She's led the ALP to the lowest polling since opinion polls began. She does not enjoy the confidence or support of the people at large. BUT for varied reasons - she does enjoy the support of Trade Unions and Factions in the Labor Party. It is up to her whether she survives or falls......

After reading this entire thread it is made very obvious indeed that NONE of you know who or what governs us, or what their agenda is.

Study the American (fascist) Government and who actually makes the decisions and who decides who 'leads' ... and understand that what happened there is firmly entrenched in OUR government, (either Lib. or Lab.)

Sorry you guys none of you are right, (or wrong) ... the zionist Lobbyists call the shots ... and we the people stand aside and let them.

Ssssh don't rock the boat ... they just MIGHT give us what we want and what we need... But I seriously doubt they will, they want what's left of what we still own....

Globalization ... ready or not!!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 9:36pm:

The title of this topic seems to suggest that the person who created it is suprised. Why would one be suprised that Labor has not listened to the will of the people, no matter how stupid they are to want Rudd back? Labor never listened to the people before (case in point: carbon tax), so why would they start listening now when it's obvious they haven't a hope in hell of winning the next election?

The reason members of the parlimentary labor party voted overwhelmingly for Julia Gillard is because they know her very much better than the public. They know that she is such a capable leader it would be daft to appoint anybody else. Not only did she resoundingly defeat the 'peoples choice' but nobody else threw their hat in the ring. The Labor party leadership is as solid as Uluru.

Why the Liberal Party continues to favour the incumbent rather than the 'peoples choice' is the question they ought to be asking.