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

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


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.

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."

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.

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



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

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.

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



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

good grief you agree.!!  Good on ya