Assuming Rudd doesn't . . .more like a certainty than an assumption.
Looking around, I can't see anybody at all.
Shorten? Sorry but Shorten is just not leadership material. He would be the guy that doesn't get noticed in a room full of people.
Combet? Now Combet is leadership material imo, but as I understand it he's walking away.
Who else have they got that is likely to be still standing?
Bowen? In danger of losing his seat, but anyway again not leadership material.
They are in a mess aren't they.

There's Peter Beatie assuming he doen't get beatie.... ;D

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

Assuming Rudd doesn't . . .more like a certainty than an assumption. Looking around, I can't see anybody at all. Shorten? Sorry but Shorten is just not leadership material. He would be the guy that doesn't get noticed in a room full of people. Combet? Now Combet is leadership material imo, but as I understand it he's walking away. Who else have they got that is likely to be still standing? Bowen? In danger of losing his seat, but anyway again not leadership material. They are in a mess aren't they.

Why didnt you call the thread, who you think will not lead Labor? ::)

C'mon, he's an old man isn't he? He looks it anyway.
And doesn't he carry too much baggage?
Who have they got that is fresh, looks like a leader, has presence and gravitas, and will keep them in the game through at least two terms in opposition?
I'm struggling to see somebody.
. . .OMG, I just had a terrible thought. They wouldn't go to Carr would they?

skippy. wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 1:53pm: Assuming Rudd doesn't . . .more like a certainty than an assumption. Looking around, I can't see anybody at all. Shorten? Sorry but Shorten is just not leadership material. He would be the guy that doesn't get noticed in a room full of people. Combet? Now Combet is leadership material imo, but as I understand it he's walking away. Who else have they got that is likely to be still standing? Bowen? In danger of losing his seat, but anyway again not leadership material. They are in a mess aren't they. Why didnt you call the thread, who you think will not lead Labor? ::)

Aw, poor little roo-girl spitting the dummy.  :'(

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

C'mon, he's an old man isn't he? He looks it anyway. And doesn't he carry too much baggage? Who have they got that is fresh, looks like a leader, has presence and gravitas, and will keep them in the game through at least two terms in opposition? I'm struggling to see somebody. . . .OMG, I just had a terrible thought. They wouldn't go to Carr would they?

No, because he's a Senator. It will most likely be someone like Mark Butler or Jason Clare, I would think. Shorten will never be leader, IMO, as he is irreparably damaged from knifing two sitting PMs.

I don't like Combet, in fact he scares me a bit. But I can see him as a successful Labor leader in something of the old style.
But I don't think he is even standing for election. Not that that would be a hurdle a bit down the track if they wanted to draft him.

Gorton was a senator. Not a problem, someone can always be called on to step aside.

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

Assuming Rudd doesn't . . .more like a certainty than an assumption. Looking around, I can't see anybody at all. Shorten? Sorry but Shorten is just not leadership material. He would be the guy that doesn't get noticed in a room full of people. Combet? Now Combet is leadership material imo, but as I understand it he's walking away. Who else have they got that is likely to be still standing? Bowen? In danger of losing his seat, but anyway again not leadership material. They are in a mess aren't they.

bogarde73

They have survived for well over a decade without a leader what makes you think the ALP wants one ?

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

I don't like Combet, in fact he scares me a bit. But I can see him as a successful Labor leader in something of the old style. But I don't think he is even standing for election. Not that that would be a hurdle a bit down the track if they wanted to draft him.

You have got to be joking throwing his name up, he is just a snippy ex-unionist who cut and ran when Rudd came back.

One of the big problems that got worse under Gillard was the perception that the union owns the ALP.

Well you suggest someone. The lefties here are like stunned mullets and don't want to think about it.

It doesn't matter who is the leader after the election and they're in opposition.
They'll spend X amount of months or years without direction and seeming like they're completely lost. They'll probably change leaders once or twice during that time.
The only leader that matters is the one that takes them to the next election - or the one after - or the one after that.

They all go through the same thing - the only thing that varies is how long it takes.

life_goes_on

If you think the ALP is a genuine democratic party, what you need is a less popular hard head to bash the party into a competitive shape for the next election, there needs to be a big clean out of all the dead wood.

The ALP keeps saying they need to reform but the the party does not want to, so who leads the party is irrelevant. The public have seen far too much of the inner workings of the ALP especially out of the NSW ALP / Obied affair.

My view is that the ALP will need either Abbott to be a complete screw up or for the ALP to wait a decade or two.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 1:53pm: Assuming Rudd doesn't . . .more like a certainty than an assumption. Looking around, I can't see anybody at all. Shorten? Sorry but Shorten is just not leadership material. He would be the guy that doesn't get noticed in a room full of people. Combet? Now Combet is leadership material imo, but as I understand it he's walking away. Who else have they got that is likely to be still standing? Bowen? In danger of losing his seat, but anyway again not leadership material. They are in a mess aren't they. bogarde73 They have survived for well over a decade without a leader what makes you think the ALP wants one ?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

the lefties wont like that!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

dastyari I am sure they are [fingers crossed] hoping he wont blot his copy book......lol.. some hope!

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

Well you suggest someone. The lefties here are like stunned mullets and don't want to think about it.

bogarde73

That someone has to be able to get the factions into line.

The only reason they tolerate Rudd was because Gillard was as popular as a fart in a sauna.

That was a very negative reason to choose Rudd.

Given there will be less ALP MP's around and many of the current ones are bowing out its hard to see anyone who has the balls and public profile to stand up to the factions and the union.

Chris Bowen would be about the only name (if you insist on one), but everyone knows the bunny holding the bag after an election loss is a care taker leader at best, much like a night watchman in cricket.

My real answer is that the party needs to be more democratic and they need all new fresh faces...... especially the leader.

I am guessing they might use straws to work out who will lead the party, the unlucky one who draws the shortest gets the gig.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:26pm:

It doesn't matter who is the leader after the election and they're in opposition. They'll spend X amount of months or years without direction and seeming like they're completely lost. They'll probably change leaders once or twice during that time. The only leader that matters is the one that takes them to the next election - or the one after - or the one after that. They all go through the same thing - the only thing that varies is how long it takes.

they were bad in govt   imagine what they will be like in opposition...grooooooooooooooooan.

buzz will be beside himself... he blamed the Libs for ever for Labor being in govt in NSW for 15 years...the opposition was so bad they made anything look good.. according to the oracle buzz. :(

cods

The ALP does not want a leader, they had two in 6 years that they knifed, surely that is enough for a trend ?

Otherwise how many leaders does the ALP have to knife before your convinced they really don't want one. The fact they brought Rudd back merely suggest they wanted a popular mouth piece not a leader.

Peter Beattie will lead Labor after the defeat in less then 3 weeks time.

You heard it first from Bobby.  ;)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Peter Beattie will lead Labor after the defeat in less then 3 weeks time. You heard it first from Bobby.  ;)

The polls don't look to good for him, he needs to take a seat in a climate where the ALP is on the nose, he is against the current without a paddle.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:22pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I don't like Combet, in fact he scares me a bit. But I can see him as a successful Labor leader in something of the old style. But I don't think he is even standing for election. Not that that would be a hurdle a bit down the track if they wanted to draft him. You have got to be joking throwing his name up, he is just a snippy ex-unionist who cut and ran when Rudd came back. One of the big problems that got worse under Gillard was the perception that the union owns the ALP.

unfortunately, it was a perception under Rudd but an undeniable fact under Gillard.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Peter Beattie will lead Labor after the defeat in less then 3 weeks time. You heard it first from Bobby.  ;) The polls don't look to good for him, he needs to take a seat in a climate where the ALP is on the nose, he is against the current without a paddle.

He will win Forde & be the next opposition leader to
take Labor to victory in 2016.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:37pm:

life_goes_on If you think the ALP is a genuine democratic party, what you need is a less popular hard head to bash the party into a competitive shape for the next election, there needs to be a big clean out of all the dead wood. The ALP keeps saying they need to reform but the the party does not want to, so who leads the party is irrelevant. The public have seen far too much of the inner workings of the ALP especially out of the NSW ALP / Obied affair. My view is that the ALP will need either Abbott to be a complete screw up or for the ALP to wait a decade or two.

ironically, what Labor needs now is a mssive electoral flogging.  This is the sort of impetus that will force even the most pig-headed ALP faction leader to accept that there is a problem.  And just as it was under Whitlam it will probably take a SECOND flogging in 20106 to finally get the party to reform and become viable again.  The biggest tragedy of Rudd leading now is that his (fading) popularity will probably be enough to prevent the landslide that the ALP desperately needs to start the reform process.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

cods The ALP does not want a leader, they had two in 6 years that they knifed, surely that is enough for a trend ? Otherwise how many leaders does the ALP have to knife before your convinced they really don't want one. The fact they brought Rudd back merely suggest they wanted a popular mouth piece not a leader.

The Libs had four leaders in six years, two knifed and one dumped by his own electorate.
Labor best get their act together because the indecent assaulter will be as popular as a fart in a sauna come three years time.

I think Labor will keep Rudd while they groom someone else.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:50pm:

cods The ALP does not want a leader, they had two in 6 years that they knifed, surely that is enough for a trend ? Otherwise how many leaders does the ALP have to knife before your convinced they really don't want one. The fact they brought Rudd back merely suggest they wanted a popular mouth piece not a leader.

so you dont think they will groom Sam Dastyari?..

they THOUGHT rudd was popular... thats what I mean ab out labor they take us for idiots.. no one can see or think for themselves..if they tell us rudd is the man for the job... we all go "yes of course if you say so"..

ha... not so.. thank god at last people are waking up and thinking for themselves.. and that goes for all politicians..

I am over being treated like an idiot..they act as if we owe them.. like hell now its all about manipulating the senate..ok if we cant win the lower house at least lets make it as unworkable as we can... >:(

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:25pm: Well you suggest someone. The lefties here are like stunned mullets and don't want to think about it. bogarde73 That someone has to be able to get the factions into line. The only reason they tolerate Rudd was because Gillard was as popular as a fart in a sauna. That was a very negative reason to choose Rudd. Given there will be less ALP MP's around and many of the current ones are bowing out its hard to see anyone who has the balls and public profile to stand up to the factions and the union. Chris Bowen would be about the only name (if you insist on one), but everyone knows the bunny holding the bag after an election loss is a care taker leader at best, much like a night watchman in cricket. My real answer is that the party needs to be more democratic and they need all new fresh faces...... especially the leader. I am guessing they might use straws to work out who will lead the party, the unlucky one who draws the shortest gets the gig.

well actually the irony is that Gillard was popular INSIDE the ALP but outside, very unpopular.  Rudd is the reverse.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Peter Beattie will lead Labor after the defeat in less then 3 weeks time. You heard it first from Bobby.  ;)

you really are a stupid turd.  Beattie is a long way behind in his seat and not expected to win.

I'd like to see Doug Cameron as PM/Leader...

Get that one up you, Righties!!!!

Kat wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

I'd like to see Doug Cameron as PM/Leader... Get that one up you, Righties!!!!

???  You think anyon in liberal ranks is the slightest bit intimdated by ANYONE in the current labor ranks?

Kat wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

I'd like to see Doug Cameron as PM/Leader... Get that one up you, Righties!!!!

what a bitter old man you are...I am sure you have met some very nice righties in your lifetime.. we are n ot all bad.. and not nearly as nasty as you are... you are just a sore loser thats all..even though you pretend to sit on the fence thats not the way you come across.

Kat wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

I'd like to see Doug Cameron as PM/Leader... Get that one up you, Righties!!!!

Well he can't in the first term as he is a senator who needs to be parachuted into a safe seat (if there are any left)

Also he is an ex-unionist which the electorate does not want.

Kat wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

I'd like to see Doug Cameron as PM/Leader... Get that one up you, Righties!!!!

Achh,  güüd idea, Dougy fer Opposition leaderrr.

Who is going to lead Labor?

I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals.

So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ?

Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:16pm: I'd like to see Doug Cameron as PM/Leader... Get that one up you, Righties!!!! Achh,  güüd idea, Dougy fer Opposition leaderrr.

Yes it could be funny have willy the grewnnds kaperrr as the opposition leaderrr

At least it will be better than Ned Flanders (Rudd)

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ?

If the Liberals win it will be the first time we have had a failed government before they are even appointed.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ?

You don't think it would be an advantage for the Liberals to have a proper leader ?

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:

Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals.

wow that delusion of yours is getting the better of you.

You need help.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? If the Liberals win it will be the first time we have had a failed government before they are even appointed.

now you are just sounding like SOB on a bad day.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? You don't think it would be an advantage for the Liberals to have a proper leader ?

They have the best opposition leader in our history while the ALP has ??????

Not sure what your issue is with Abbott, if he is as bad as you say then the ALP will be returned to power very quickly.

So you think Rudd will want to hang around or the ALP would still want him ?

longweekend58

DNA is the biggest red herring thrower in this forum, completely incapable of debating any topic as far as I can tell.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? You don't think it would be an advantage for the Liberals to have a proper leader ?

poor dna has memory loss... he has forgotten Abbott took his leader to a hung parliament....and then pushed her over the edge... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

cods

PMs usually have a progression of being in opposition, leadign the opposition, winning the election.........

Gillard failed this by any measure by knifing Rudd then causing a draw, Abbott dismantles the ALP since 2010 and that disqualifies him from being PM ?

Maybe we should change the constitution for DNA and force the leaders to win at Roman Greco wrestling, but even at that Rudd would lose. Doubt the fat prick would fit in the outfit.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? If the Liberals win it will be the first time we have had a failed government before they are even appointed.

That's my take on them, too.

But I've gotten to the stage where I simply no longer care.

Let the ba$tards trash the place.

They'll have only themselves to blame.

But as long as they keep their wealthfare everything's OK, right?

IMO, that has a lot to do with Abbott's popularity, as Labor have demonstrated that wealthfare is in their sights.

And that's truly a pathetic reason for voting for these far-Right, nationalistic neo-fascists.

Kat wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:46pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? If the Liberals win it will be the first time we have had a failed government before they are even appointed. That's my take on them, too. But I've gotten to the stage where I simply no longer care. Let the ba$tards trash the place. They'll have only themselves to blame. But as long as they keep their wealthfare everything's OK, right? IMO, that has a lot to do with Abbott's popularity, as Labor have demonstrated that wealthfare is in their sights. And that's truly a pathetic reason for voting for these far-Right, nationalistic neo-fascists.

and THAT is why so many people think you are a jerk.

Quote:

Who is going to lead Labor?

Who cares for now ?, all i care about is seeing those scums kicked out by sep the 7th

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:46pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? If the Liberals win it will be the first time we have had a failed government before they are even appointed. That's my take on them, too. But I've gotten to the stage where I simply no longer care. Let the ba$tards trash the place. They'll have only themselves to blame. But as long as they keep their wealthfare everything's OK, right? IMO, that has a lot to do with Abbott's popularity, as Labor have demonstrated that wealthfare is in their sights. And that's truly a pathetic reason for voting for these far-Right, nationalistic neo-fascists. and THAT is why so many people think you are a jerk.

No.

Only you.

And I don't think the dislike of one or two posters on a forum is likely to bother me too much.

Suffice to say that those who know me in real life certainly wouldn't (and don't) share your opinion.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:53pm: Peter Beattie will lead Labor after the defeat in less then 3 weeks time. You heard it first from Bobby.  ;) you really are a stupid turd.  Beattie is a long way behind in his seat and not expected to win.

turd?

Offensive language.

Shall I report it?

Kat wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 6:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 5:57pm: Kat wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:46pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? If the Liberals win it will be the first time we have had a failed government before they are even appointed. That's my take on them, too. But I've gotten to the stage where I simply no longer care. Let the ba$tards trash the place. They'll have only themselves to blame. But as long as they keep their wealthfare everything's OK, right? IMO, that has a lot to do with Abbott's popularity, as Labor have demonstrated that wealthfare is in their sights. And that's truly a pathetic reason for voting for these far-Right, nationalistic neo-fascists. and THAT is why so many people think you are a jerk. No. Only you. And I don't think the dislike of one or two posters on a forum is likely to bother me too much. Suffice to say that those who know me in real life certainly wouldn't (and don't) share your opinion.

you are probably very popular in your centre-link queue complaining endlessly about the dole.  But out here in the WORKING portion of Australia....

JUST GET ANOTHER TOPIC other than the dole and your abbott-hate.

stryder wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 6:00pm:

Quote: Who is going to lead Labor? Who cares for now ?, all i care about is seeing those scums kicked out by sep the 7th

You're going to be very disappointed then, even if phoney Tony wins the election Labor will be the government until at least September eight.

skippy. wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 6:27pm:

stryder wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 6:00pm: Quote: Who is going to lead Labor? Who cares for now ?, all i care about is seeing those scums kicked out by sep the 7th You're going to be very disappointed then, even if phoney Tony wins the election Labor will be the government until at least September eight.

your point is what exactly?  That Rudd will be PM until sept 8? 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 6:23pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 5:57pm: Kat wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 5:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:46pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? If the Liberals win it will be the first time we have had a failed government before they are even appointed. That's my take on them, too. But I've gotten to the stage where I simply no longer care. Let the ba$tards trash the place. They'll have only themselves to blame. But as long as they keep their wealthfare everything's OK, right? IMO, that has a lot to do with Abbott's popularity, as Labor have demonstrated that wealthfare is in their sights. And that's truly a pathetic reason for voting for these far-Right, nationalistic neo-fascists. and THAT is why so many people think you are a jerk. No. Only you. And I don't think the dislike of one or two posters on a forum is likely to bother me too much. Suffice to say that those who know me in real life certainly wouldn't (and don't) share your opinion. you are probably very popular in your centre-link queue complaining endlessly about the dole.  But out here in the WORKING portion of Australia.... JUST GET ANOTHER TOPIC other than the dole and your abbott-hate.

No. I won't be leaving it alone until they get a fair go.

And I don't stand in Centrelink queues. I work.

Also, I have as much right to be passionately opposed to Abbott as you have to support him.

And that does not mean I automatically support Rudd/Labor. I do not.

well I 've read the first couple of pages...    ehhh.. (shrugs)


And in spite of some comments I suggest Labor lost the election when they dumped Julia G.

The best LEADER they've had for some time.. the old school just couldn't tolerate a tough talking woman.....  who achieved much given the constrictions upon her.

If Labor had stuck with Julia G... they would have had a chance.... with KRUDD...?????

Bye Bye.. see you after you return from the Wilderness.

Emma wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

well I 've read the first couple of pages...    ehhh.. (shrugs) And in spite of some comments I suggest Labor lost the election when they dumped Julia G. The best LEADER they've had for some time.. the old school just couldn't tolerate a tough talking woman.....  who achieved much given the constrictions upon her. If Labor had stuck with Julia G... they would have had a chance.... with KRUDD...????? Bye Bye.. see you after you return from the Wilderness.

Gillard was at 58/42 with a 29% primary vote and DROPPING.  she was toxic to the voting public and simply HAD to be dumped.

Emma wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

well I 've read the first couple of pages...    ehhh.. (shrugs) And in spite of some comments I suggest Labor lost the election when they dumped Julia G. The best LEADER they've had for some time.. the old school just couldn't tolerate a tough talking woman.....  who achieved much given the constrictions upon her. If Labor had stuck with Julia G... they would have had a chance.... with KRUDD...????? Bye Bye.. see you after you return from the Wilderness.

You are suffering from early onset memory loss. Labor dumped Gillard to minimise their losses.
I know you are a girl and this is detail but still - hello?? (can I say this? :P)

matty wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

No, because he's a Senator.

Completely irrelevant.

A Senator can lead the party, and a Senator can be Prime Minister.



matty wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

Shorten will never be leader, IMO, as he is irreparably damaged from knifing two sitting PMs.

IMO, he will.  We'll have to wait and see.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:46pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? You don't think it would be an advantage for the Liberals to have a proper leader ? They have the best opposition leader in our history while the ALP has ?????? Not sure what your issue is with Abbott, if he is as bad as you say then the ALP will be returned to power very quickly. So you think Rudd will want to hang around or the ALP would still want him ?

They have the best opposition leader in our history

And yet every single trait he has displayed is the diametric opposite of what you would like to see from a prospective Leader ?

Vote for Tony he is negative and can undermine or destroy anything?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:40pm:

matty wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: No, because he's a Senator. Completely irrelevant. A Senator can lead the party, and a Senator can be Prime Minister. matty wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: Shorten will never be leader, IMO, as he is irreparably damaged from knifing two sitting PMs. IMO, he will.  We'll have to wait and see.

constitutionally, but not in a practical sense.  Gorton became PM from the senate and then moved immediately to the lower house.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 4:30pm:

Well he can't in the first term as he is a senator ...

Totally irrelevant.

See my last post.

(and learn a little bit about the Australian Constitution, while you're at it)

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:40pm: matty wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: No, because he's a Senator. Completely irrelevant. A Senator can lead the party, and a Senator can be Prime Minister. matty wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: Shorten will never be leader, IMO, as he is irreparably damaged from knifing two sitting PMs. IMO, he will.  We'll have to wait and see. constitutionally, but not in a practical sense.  Gorton became PM from the senate and then moved immediately to the lower house.

Yes, however, I'll just repeat what I said (which was 100% correct):

A Senator can lead the party, and a Senator can be Prime Minister.

Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:13pm: well I 've read the first couple of pages...    ehhh.. (shrugs) And in spite of some comments I suggest Labor lost the election when they dumped Julia G. The best LEADER they've had for some time.. the old school just couldn't tolerate a tough talking woman.....  who achieved much given the constrictions upon her. If Labor had stuck with Julia G... they would have had a chance.... with KRUDD...????? Bye Bye.. see you after you return from the Wilderness. You are suffering from early onset memory loss. Labor dumped Gillard to minimise their losses. I know you are a girl and this is detail but still - hello?? (can I say this? :P)

tweetie you can say anything you want...within the rules of the forum. :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:30pm: Well he can't in the first term as he is a senator ... Totally irrelevant. See my last post. (and learn a little bit about the Australian Constitution, while you're at it)

greggerypeccary

So you when is Doug going to do his run ?

Has this ever been done ?

He can not be in the house of reps unless he is a member of the lower house.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:53pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:46pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:34pm: Who is going to lead Labor? I would think Kevin Rudd - the interesting question may be who will lead the Liberals. So you still have the Abbott Abbott Abbott disease, will it peak on election night ? You don't think it would be an advantage for the Liberals to have a proper leader ? They have the best opposition leader in our history while the ALP has ?????? Not sure what your issue is with Abbott, if he is as bad as you say then the ALP will be returned to power very quickly. So you think Rudd will want to hang around or the ALP would still want him ? They have the best opposition leader in our history And yet every single trait he has displayed is the diametric opposite of what you would like to see from a prospective Leader ? Vote for Tony he is negative and can undermine or destroy anything?

In your dumb ar$e red herring view.

Me I am indifferent at this point, you have over blown your argument with your Abbott Abbott Abbott disease.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:45pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:40pm: matty wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: No, because he's a Senator. Completely irrelevant. A Senator can lead the party, and a Senator can be Prime Minister. matty wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 3:02pm: Shorten will never be leader, IMO, as he is irreparably damaged from knifing two sitting PMs. IMO, he will.  We'll have to wait and see. constitutionally, but not in a practical sense.  Gorton became PM from the senate and then moved immediately to the lower house. Yes, however, I'll just repeat what I said (which was 100% correct): A Senator can lead the party, and a Senator can be Prime Minister.

And I will repeat what I said which is that practicality says otherwise.  It is also true that Rudd does not have to stop being PM if he loses the election.  He can stay in the job until parliament sits and only lose the job if the parliament pases a vote of no-confidence in him.  possible but not even remotely practical or likely.

conventions do have quite a lot of power.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 7:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:45pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:30pm: Well he can't in the first term as he is a senator ... Totally irrelevant. See my last post. (and learn a little bit about the Australian Constitution, while you're at it) greggerypeccary 1. So you when is Doug going to do his run ? 2. Has this ever been done ? 3. He can not be in the house of reps unless he is a member of the lower house.

1. I don't think he's going to make a run.

2. John Gorton became Prime Minister when he was in the Senate (also, Senator George Pearse was acting PM for several months).

3. There is no Constitutional requirement for the Prime Minister to be in the House of Representatives.  In fact, the office of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in the Constitution (nor are political parties).

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:45pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:30pm: Well he can't in the first term as he is a senator ... Totally irrelevant. See my last post. (and learn a little bit about the Australian Constitution, while you're at it) greggerypeccary 1. So you when is Doug going to do his run ? 2. Has this ever been done ? 3. He can not be in the house of reps unless he is a member of the lower house. 1. I don't think he's going to make a run. 2. John Gorton became Prime Minister when he was in the Senate (also, Senator George Pearse was acting PM for several months). 3. There is no Constitutional requirement for the Prime Minister to be in the House of Representatives.  In fact, the office of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in the Constitution (nor are political parties).

so which part of PRACTICALITY are you not reading?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 8:02pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:45pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:30pm: Well he can't in the first term as he is a senator ... Totally irrelevant. See my last post. (and learn a little bit about the Australian Constitution, while you're at it) greggerypeccary 1. So you when is Doug going to do his run ? 2. Has this ever been done ? 3. He can not be in the house of reps unless he is a member of the lower house. 1. I don't think he's going to make a run. 2. John Gorton became Prime Minister when he was in the Senate (also, Senator George Pearse was acting PM for several months). 3. There is no Constitutional requirement for the Prime Minister to be in the House of Representatives.  In fact, the office of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in the Constitution (nor are political parties). so which part of PRACTICALITY are you not reading?

I'm not denying the validity of your comments at all.

We are both correct in this instance.

Settle petal.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 8:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 8:02pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 7:45pm: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 4:30pm: Well he can't in the first term as he is a senator ... Totally irrelevant. See my last post. (and learn a little bit about the Australian Constitution, while you're at it) greggerypeccary 1. So you when is Doug going to do his run ? 2. Has this ever been done ? 3. He can not be in the house of reps unless he is a member of the lower house. 1. I don't think he's going to make a run. 2. John Gorton became Prime Minister when he was in the Senate (also, Senator George Pearse was acting PM for several months). 3. There is no Constitutional requirement for the Prime Minister to be in the House of Representatives.  In fact, the office of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in the Constitution (nor are political parties). so which part of PRACTICALITY are you not reading? I'm not denying the validity of your comments at all. We are both correct in this instance. Settle petal.

I have a practical bent.  Pedantry is one of my pet hates.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:02am:

I have a practical bent.  Pedantry is one of my pet hates.

I like facts.

Life's too short to harbour pet hates.

What about Queen Kristine the Cute?

She deserves a reward for carrying the can for those nice people, Obeid and McDonald.

She's proven she's staunch and can be relied upon.

Seriously, if Oz had wanted a female PM, Kristine would have shyt all over Gillard.

She'd still be PM, and her polls would show an overwhelming win for Labor.

Why?

Because she's GOOD. She's bright. She gives a smack. And, unlike her backers in NSW
Labor, or the Abbott circus, you can believe her.

But she was so disgusted, she walked away, and I'm fecked if I can blame her. They
wanted her to go to Can't-berra, but she said no.

This is one fair-dinkum girl, and her treatment by Obeid et al, and the subsequent NSW
Labor loss, cost this county a true visionary future female PM.

Oh, if it had been her, instead of Gillard....

If Gorton could do it, Cameron can do it.

The Con-stitution hasn't changed in that respect.

Kat wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

If Gorton could do it, Cameron can do it. The Con-stitution hasn't changed in that respect.

Kat

If the ALP wants willy the grounds keeper to be come the ALP leader in a very unconventional way ..... go for it.

Since 2007 everything the ALP has either failed completely or failed to help them politically so they might as well pile on a new dumb mistake to the current pile of dumb ideas ........ Let me think what happened the last time the let a clapped out ex unionist lead the party ????