Federal Labor Party discussion

[drsmith]

ALP at forthcoming election 55%, Libs 45%,

That, but the other way around.

 

[sptrawler]

The press are looking pale and frustrated;

Abbott is stutterring Blah Blah Blah;

ASF high counters are frustrated and xxx ing each other;

So what has happenned; Krudd has arrived back on the scene cause Jules ran out of support/steam/etc;

The electorate have been so fed up with the lead up, cant keep up to the mortgage, sick of boat people talk and of course the Blah B xxx b lah blah.

And kruddy Kev is smiling, the press love the change, people are talking in the streets again, not sure what is happening but at least it is a bit like a Santa thype of thing. I'll vote for that.

And as I said last week, ALP at forthcoming election 55%, Libs 45%,

And like me ole mate Sir Les Patterson often says, "No xxxx xing worries pal"

I hope your right, at least it will bring house prices down.

Nothing like a good reccession to bring some poverty and pain, or the other good Labor elixir, rampant inflation.lol

 

[So_Cynical]

In the first national poll since Kevin Rudd returned as Prime Minister, results show he has taken a significant lead as the country's preferred leader...yep i know about the Honeymoon thing.

• Rudd 51%
• Abbott 34%

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-...show-rudd-is-preferred-prime-minister/4789860

So im wondering if anyone has an example of when a potential PM has not won the job with a rating of over 50% ?

Or the other way around, has an Opposition leader ever won with a preferred PM rating under 35% ?

I cant think of a time when this has ever happened before. :dunno:

 

[drsmith]

Kevin Rudd is not the Messiah for Labor.

He's the disaster that's found the same place to happen twice.

 

[So_Cynical]

Kevin Rudd is not the Messiah for Labor.

He's the disaster that's found the same place to happen twice.

Don't tell me, The absolute worst Prime Minister we have ever had? the new worst after just 1 week.

------------

Care to comment on my previous post?

 

[sptrawler]

In the first national poll since Kevin Rudd returned as Prime Minister, results show he has taken a significant lead as the country's preferred leader...yep i know about the Honeymoon thing.

• Rudd 51%
• Abbott 34%

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-...show-rudd-is-preferred-prime-minister/4789860

So im wondering if anyone has an example of when a potential PM has not won the job with a rating of over 50% ?

Or the other way around, has an Opposition leader ever won with a preferred PM rating under 35% ?

I cant think of a time when this has ever happened before. :dunno:

It wasn't that long ago you were talking up Gillard.

How did that go for you?

Now you're backing a two times loser of his own party, you are so rusted on, we could call you 'red lead'.lol

 

[moXJO]

So im wondering if anyone has an example of when a potential PM has not won the job with a rating of over 50% ?

Or the other way around, has an Opposition leader ever won with a preferred PM rating under 35% ?

I cant think of a time when this has ever happened before. :dunno:

That's an interesting question.
I think he has a pretty good chance at wining it. God only knows what people see in him after his first run as PM though.

 

[sptrawler]

I think Labor are still in deep manure, selective polling might be great for newsprint.

But the silent majority have had a gutfull of Labor.IMO

Time will tell.

 

[So_Cynical]

It wasn't that long ago you were talking up Gillard.

How did that go for you?

Now you're backing a two times loser of his own party, you are so rusted on, we could call you 'red lead'.lol

Gillard was ok, for what ever reason she just didn't appeal to the masses, i can understand why they rolled Rudd in the first place (still think it was wrong though) but clearly understand that Julia's use by date had come around...no room for sentamentality in politics...not in the Labor party anyway.

The Liberals is another matter of course, Labor unlike The Liberals, can and do actually make the hard decisions..unlike the Gutless Howard and Costello show, what a sad joke that was, a political use by date that was totally ignored, a quality politician destroyed before he really had a chance.

 

[springhill]

Gillard was ok, for what ever reason she just didn't appeal to the masses, i can understand why they rolled Rudd in the first place (still think it was wrong though) but clearly understand that Julia's use by date had come around...no room for sentamentality in politics...not in the Labor party anyway.

The Liberals is another matter of course, Labor unlike The Liberals, can and do actually make the hard decisions..unlike the Gutless Howard and Costello show, what a sad joke that was, a political use by date that was totally ignored, a quality politician destroyed before he really had a chance.

SC, your postings are quickly becoming amongst the worst on the forum. I mean your political posts, I actually do enjoy reading your postings on individual stocks and market related matters.

Once again you make generalised, sweeping statements with no detail to back them up. I have challenged you on more than one occasion within the last week to provide detail to back up your claims and you have failed to do so.

Let's try this again.

1. What 'hard decisions' did Labor make during the terms of Gillard or Rudd being Prime Minister and please explain how they were of benefit to the country?

2. Please explain why Howard and Costello were 'a sad joke' and which policies that were implemented by them that were not of benefit to the country?

3. Can you please explain why rolling Kevin Rudd in the first place was wrong?

4. Who was the quality politician destroyed 'before he had a chance'? Do you mean Costello? If so, as much as I am an admirer of Peter Costello there was one thing he did lack, backbone. He never had the intestinal fortitude to challenge Howard and in doing so condemned himself to his own fate.

If you are unable to provide anything from Gillard or Rudd and need to go back to Hawke or Keating to find 'hard decisions' that were of benefit to Australia, then you are going back to a different era of Australian politics. One where the Labor values were incomparable to what Labor's are today.

One difference between Howard and Gillard which no one can deny, is that he had the guts to take the GST to an election campaign, unlike the Labor party with their Carbon Tax.

If you wish to know why Gillard didn't appeal to the masses, it was because she was seen as a liar, untrustworthy and deceitful. A PM who cried in Parliament over the grandeur NDIS and the struggle she had to endure to get it up, yet in 2010 as deputy PM railed against a measly $30 increase in the pension. It seems as long as she was throwing the buckets of money around and accepting the accolades then that expenditure was fine. A person who acted in one way for a period of her political life and term of Prime Minister, yet then unveiled the 'Real Julia' in one of the biggest character blunders of all time.

Yet you can't see why she didn't appeal to the masses? Even a rusted on Labor supporter like yourself must see this, surely?

The point I am making here is back up what you are posting with detail.
If you are unable to front up on this one, then I would say the largest 'sad joke' in the political threads is not Howard or Costello, it is you.

 

[drsmith]

Don't tell me, The absolute worst Prime Minister we have ever had? the new worst after just 1 week.

What would you like me to do ?

Repeat the words of his own party colleagues ??

Care to comment on my previous post?

While Tony Abbott is unpopular with the electorate, the Labor party itself is toxic with the electorate.

This is why Labor can't get ahead on 2PP in any sustained way regardless of who the electorate rates as better PM.

 

[Calliope]

Can Rudd change? I don't think it is possible to change a narcissistic complex.

The second thing that Rudd can't change is temperament. It would be unfair to deeply analyse this in the media, however you be the judge of how many of six common signs of narcissistic leadership could apply to our Prime Minister:
• Prone to grandiose visions and to over-estimating their own capabilities (remember "the greatest moral challenge of our time").
• Hyper-sensitive to criticism and liable to fly into anger (be careful when serving him on a plane).
• Pursue power at all costs leading to infighting and suspicion which ultimately brings them down (enough said).
• Easily bored, change course often (swing to the left, swing to the right on boats).
• Lack empathy and trust but say the socially acceptable thing when in public (Is there a better example than saying he won't accept anyone criticising former PM Gillard).
• Gather only those who agree around them (was that eight cabinet ministers who have gone?)
Pressure exposes default behaviours and tends to amplify strengths until they become weaknesses. If even half of these narcissistic characteristics apply to PM Rudd then he'd best call the election as early as possible.

(My Bolds)


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/rudd-...p-of-honour-20130702-2p9so.html#ixzz2XxBgJxxr

 

[Calliope]

It didn't take the Egyptians long to wake up to Dr Mursi, the Egyptian version of Mr Rudd. They want him out!

 

[sptrawler]

The Liberals is another matter of course, Labor unlike The Liberals, can and do actually make the hard decisions..unlike the Gutless Howard and Costello show, what a sad joke that was, a political use by date that was totally ignored, a quality politician destroyed before he really had a chance.

Actually, I don't think Costello would have won that election, people had it too good and were bored.
They wanted change and brought it about.
Howard faced an electorate that felt like a change, so Labor parachuted in a high profile t.v personality, to give them a shallow reason.
It doesn't mean that Howard was past his use by date, just that Labor play shallow politics at the expense of their true members. This has been highlighted yet again in the Northern territory decission.

It's a repulsive way to run a political party and generaly denigrates the political process. Yet some of the "true believers" as yourself, seem to embrace 'the ends justifies the means' mantra.

As for Costello, many politicians have been slapped in the face, yet stood by the strengh of their convictions.
Costello jumped out, rather than test the electorates belief in his leadership, his choice.

 

[Julia]

Actually, I don't think Costello would have won that election, people had it too good and were bored.
They wanted change and brought it about.
Howard faced an electorate that felt like a change, so Labor parachuted in a high profile t.v personality, to give them a shallow reason.

That's a really valid point. And it's in addition to the fact that - according to all reliable sources - Costello just never had the numbers to challenge Howard.
I blame John Howard who himself became too 'relaxed and comfortable' to recognise that the time factor was his enemy. He should have honoured his promise to Costello and passed the baton.

Even if that election had been lost, Costello would have been a hugely more competent Opposition Leader than the options that exist now.

Eventually Tony Abbott is going to have to front up to a debate with Rudd. I hope the result is better than current indications would suggest.

 

[MrBurns]

So what is the evidence that he is an Islamist with extreme views rather than a person with a different religion to the majority?

Cheers
Country Lad

Just looks like the thin edge of the wedge.

 

[sptrawler]

Is this a clever push by Canberra for a Republic, or just a clever push by Canberra to take over direct control of education and health.
Which by default, doesn't leave much for the States to be responsible for, so why have them.lol


Premier Colin Barnett says his warnings that WA's declining GST share will eventually impact on services have become a reality, flagging hits to health and education in next month's Budget

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/17854306/cuts-to-gst-share-hit-health-education/


One would also have to ask if the direct funding of Local Councils, doesn't have the same result.

Is it a Republic by stealth?
President Rudd, President Gillard. Sounds like a better pension to me.

 

[McLovin]

Is this a clever push by Canberra for a Republic, or just a clever push by Canberra to take over direct control of education and health.
Which by default, doesn't leave much for the States to be responsible for, so why have them.lol


Premier Colin Barnett says his warnings that WA's declining GST share will eventually impact on services have become a reality, flagging hits to health and education in next month's Budget

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/17854306/cuts-to-gst-share-hit-health-education/


One would also have to ask if the direct funding of Local Councils, doesn't have the same result.

Is it a Republic by stealth?
President Rudd, President Gillard. Sounds like a better pension to me.

I don't see the connection between this and the republic debate?

 

[sptrawler]

I don't see the connection between this and the republic debate?

If Australia was a Republic, what part would the State Governments play?

Put another way, if Federal look after health education and local government, what does State Government do?

 

[banco]

If Australia was a Republic, what part would the State Governments play?

Hmmm I'm struggling to think of a country that's a republic and has a federal structure.