|
|
Post by Salem on Mar 23, 2013 12:32:45 GMT 10
If I had that wankers money I'd be f***ed if I'd be wasting my time hanging around Canberra.  Totally. I'd say, f**k you all, sit back, and watch Gillard destroy the party on the night of September 14. The (Opposition) Leadership will be his for the taking after that, but who could blame him for walking away? In the public's mind, Rudd is not 'history'. But after seeing one woman hold her party hostage because she is too power-hungry and too self-serving and selfish to resign her commission and let Rudd unopposed re-take it, Rudd should say f**k em, I'm not going to help them. Sit back and watch Gillard destroy the party with a big grin on his face and a cold one in hand. Labor gets what it deserves on September 14. Never has there been a more malevolent, scheming, conniving and power-at-all costs devisive bitch as Gillard as PM. Shes destroying Labor and the Gillard-bots can't see it. They will see it when the karma train comes on Sept 14. Too late to regret not drafting Rudd then. This is like watching a massive train or plane crash in slow motion. And the people driving/piloting know how to prevent it but decide to deliberately crash anyway. I can't wait for the cross-over to Rudd headquarters on election night. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 23, 2013 14:11:51 GMT 10
Oh come on Pim, its so obvious Gillard and Crean were in on this together, even Stevie Wonder can see it. Many ALP supporters are saying the same thing, even some Professor in politics has come out and said Rudd was set up. Kevin did all he could ie text Crean to stop him, called Crean's office to stop the ballot to prevent this, and considering Crean must have known Rudd didn't have the numbers plus the fact that until recently Crean was a very vitriolic critic of Rudd and very much 'Team Gillard' its obvious this was a scheme between Gillard and Crean to destroy Rudd. Now, thanks to Gillard-Crean's plot, Australia has lost the best talent and elder statesmen in the party. All the talent is on the backbench because the power hungry bitch had to take revenge on Kevin being so popular and prevent him from coming back. Being "power hungry" goes with the territory. If you're a politician who isn't "power hungry" then you're in the wrong game! As for the "bitch" thing: are you, Salem, in touch with your inner "bitch"? It's a no-brainer and a given that male politicians need what Paul Keating used to call "a bit of mongrel in 'em" in order to succeed. That, and they needed to be "power hungry" too. Of course it all needs to feed into what George Bush père called the "vision thing" and I get the impression that Tony Abbott is somewhat lacking in that regard: all "power hungry & mongrel", but no "vision thing". Paul Keating put it much more succinctly: "all tip and no iceberg". I've already had this debate with Spindrift and HG. We disagree - respectfully! I also disagree with you - scornfully! Refer to the posts between Spin & HG and myself. I kinda agree with you. Kinda! I agree that Labor is in for a bullocking which will bury Gillard. As a rusted-on Labor man you can't expect me to think that this will be the best thing that could happen to Labor! It's the sort of thing that you'd do cartwheels over of course. What is remarkable is the way you presume to lecture the ALP on what's best for it. Your last paragraph is predicated on two assumptions, one of which I agree with and the other I reject as fanciful: 1. Labor is on a heading to drive itself at full speed over a cliff, like Wyle E. Coyote running in mid-air until he realises he only has air under his feet and he plummets to the ground hundreds of feet below leaving an impression of himself at the bottom of the cliff. Right now, today, I'd agree with you. 2. When Labor, like Wyle E. Coyote, crawls out of the impression of his body at the bottom of the cliff, battered, bruised and a shadow of its former self, it'll find a kindly Kevin Rudd waiting there promising to lead them back up to the top of the cliff. That's fanciful. Kevin Rudd has shown that he's no leader for the tough times. He just doesn't have the ticker. But there's something else: when Rudd challenged in Feb 2012 and lost comprehensively, he made a pretty little speech to Gillard in front of the Caucus that not only would he not challenge again, but that he, Rudd, would be a steadfast bulwark of Gillard's prime ministership to the point that anyone who even remotely bore the slightest scintilla of an appearance of threatening Gillard's prime ministership would have to get past him first. Let's not mince words or split hairs about dictionary meanings here: Rudd promised Gillard in front of the Caucus that he wouldn't just support her leadership, he'd defend it. Somehow that little story has changed. In vintage Rudd doublespeak, before you could say "programmatic specificity" or "fair shake of the sauce bottle", the story has changed to "I won't challenge. I'll wait until I'm drafted, and it has to be overwhelming". That's quite a change from a solemn undertaking, given before 100+ witnesses, that Gillard could count on Rudd's support and that he would oppose anyone who threatened Gillard's leadership. Having made his pretty little speech, dripping with insincerity and dishonesty, Rudd went back to being Destabiliser-in-Chief of the Gillard Government. The man's hubris is such that he believes his own ego to be more important than the continued existence of a viable Labor Government. I realise, Salem, that you're going to pour scorn on "viable". But to me the record of Gillard, as the leader of a minority Government, in enacting and implementing a legislative program in the teeth of frenzied and toxic opposition from those opposite, by negotiating with members of a minority party and also with independents, is an impressive one. And in among all the negatives was a snake on her own side bent on her destruction. The fact that she's taken the worst that her enemies have thrown against her and is still Prime Minister of a goivernment that has the confidence of the House of Reps (and yes, we will see how Abbott's hairy-chested no confidence motion fares in the Budget session, won't we). Let's face it, Salem, you're entitled to your opinion that Crean was in cahoots with Gillard, and I've acknowledged that my theory that Crean acted alone is just that - a theory. But Crean denies your version and elaborates on his denial. And I believe him. You don't. And there it rests. Oh! And one more thing! Regarding the silly title of this thread: Abbott has balls and Gillard has a uterus. Rudd has neither |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 23, 2013 16:31:04 GMT 10
Forget about Rudd having those, too!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2013 17:22:23 GMT 10
I have to agree with Salem's sentiments...the Gillard supporters are all too quick to blame Rudd but it has been Gillard and her supporters orchestrating the dissension, rather childishly I might add.
Rudd has stated all along he would not contest, it was Crean a Gillard supporter who brought this latest fiasco school yard spat on, Rudd had no play in it.
Even now the Gillard supporters are like children pointing the blame at Rudd all too quick to discredit the bloke who hasn't done anything wrong...the leadership speculation was media and Gillard orchestrated hype...indeed it she who is the shifty one a spokeswomen for the union factions wanting power of the party...Ferguson is right when his says democracy of the party has gone out the window ...failed.
Anyhow in the big effort by Gillard made to destroy Rudd she has effectively killed the Labor party and handed leadership on a platter to Abbott...silly power hungry school girl, hasn't achieved to get anything right.
Needless to say Labor will not get my vote, they are too immature to
lead or govern the nation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2013 17:54:07 GMT 10
No that isn't so Earl....this leadership drama is all Gillards making, Rudd has been emphatically stating he will not challenge. I think Earl you and Pim should take the rose coloured glasses off with Gillard she isn't as you think. Conroy fucks up with his media bill, so to create a diversion lets create leadership challenge that Rudd did not want to be involved with or contend. Its stupid childish stuff, Gillard is a cold calculating bitch and her union backers, now Abbott is reaching out to the disaffected Labor voters quoting Keating, and indeed he is looking a better choice than Gillard...crikey and I have aways voted Labor since Whitlam, except once when I voted Nationals because I thought Hawke wasn't quite the real deal and he was a shoe in anyway..Not that I would vote for Abbott but that is what is happening with pissed off Labor voters. And you blokes are halling hooray for Gillard... |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 23, 2013 17:54:52 GMT 10
Rudd in the immediate aftermath of the Feb 2012 challenge: Mr Rudd congratulated Julia Gillard for her "strong win".
"The Caucus has spoken," he said.
"I accept fully the verdict of the Caucus and I dedicate myself to working fully for her re-election as the Prime Minister of Australia - and I will do so with my absolute ability dedicated to the task."
www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-27/gillard-wins-leadership-spill/3854204He went further and pledged to actively defend Gillard's leadership against all comers. I realise the ABC report doesn't mention this but I remember it. You'll just have to take my word for it that Rudd went from "I'll support you proactively and anyone who tries to take your leadership will have me to deal with as an enemy" to "I won't challenge". The guy is slippery beyond belief. In fact I didn't believe it when Latham first described Rudd's duplicity and treachery in his book. I felt it was just Latham's sour grapes. Now I realise Latham was bloody well right[/u]. Rudd has been a more dangerous opponent for Gillard than Abbott. |
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Mar 23, 2013 18:30:22 GMT 10
If the Labor Party had just settled down after getting rid of Rudd and sold its message properly, things would be a whole lot better for Labor than they are now. Gillard sold her message very well and thats why she is going to get fucked off at the next election ;D |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 23, 2013 18:39:44 GMT 10
Oh, and Spindrift ... I'm under no illusions about Julia Gillard's shortcomings. I've posted on them often enough. I seem to recall I came in for some flak from you and HG as a result. That's fine, you were just being loyal to a beleaguered Labor Prime Minister which is where you were "at" back then. I'm not going to trawl through her weaknesses again at a time when she's under enormous pressure and has been showing great courage.
This is about Rudd and his lack of ticker. He lacked the ticker as PM to stand up for his ETS. Whenever the man find himself with the blowtorch applied to the belly, he cuts & runs. He had a smooth campaign as Opposition Leader in 2007. Time was up for the Howard Government. He won by presenting as Howard Lite. Policy-wise he was a real wonk and I acknowledge what he did to save the Australian economy from the GFC. I also acknowledge his ouster was a bad mistake. But Humpty Dumpty probably made a bad mistake when he fell off the wall but all the King's horses and all the King's men ... you know how it goes! Rudd's prime ministership is history, mate! Rudd's problem was that he was in denial about politics and he refused to see the connection between policy and politics. He shouldn't have cut & run over the ETS. A Whitlam or a Hawke or a Keating would have called a double dissolution election. But Rudd cut & ran. And lost the prime ministership.
When he got that tap on the shoulder in 2010 at first he said he'd defend his prime ministership before the caucus ballot. But when push came to shove ... he caved! What happened to advocacy?? Why didn't he rip into the Caucus with a fiery speech and defend his prime ministership and challenge them to face the people under his leadership? What a blow against the factions if he'd succeeded, and can you think of a better cause in which to go down to defeat if he'd lost?
And now this debacle: firstly there's all the stuff that I've mentioned on this thread. But having decided on his snakey course of treachery over the past two & a half years (beginning with his leak to Laurie Oakes during the 2010 election campaign), when push came to shove and people had put their reputations and credibility on the line ... where was Rudd?
Forget about his protestations that "I asked Bowen, then I asked Carr, then I asked the Tooth Fairy and I was oh so consultative (yeah right, and pigs fly!)", the fact is that Rudd only has to encounter an obstacle and he goes to ground. He wants the prime ministership, but he wants it in the way that Peter Costello wanted it. He wants it without having to dirty his hands with ... y'know ... political stuff!!
I say good riddance to the snakey bastard.
Salem, Garfield and the others are right when they say that Labor is going to head over a steep cliff. But the one person they won't find waiting for them at the bottom of the cliff offering to provide leadership in what is going to be a very tough time for a decimated Labor Party in opposition ... is Kevin Rudd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2013 18:55:19 GMT 10
I modified earlier post you may like to read again....you say Pim that Gillard is showing great courage, I think she is hard nosed calculating women, yet none of the policies she has made hasn't been all that successful in selling to the public and I think you are very much maligning Rudd...I would give more credence to the likes of Martin Ferguson and Chris Bowen than Crean or Gillard any day.
Rudd has stated time and time again he does not want the leadership.....not with the same ol' childish divisive mob of mongrels that want to be the power of Labor.
Other people may want Kev back but himself has had enough of the school yard carry on...as most people have.
The Laurie Oakes leaks were also attributed to Gillards own office...for her its game on win at all cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 23, 2013 19:41:12 GMT 10
Of course Julia Gillard is a hard-nosed calculating woman! How else would you expect her to be? Like my grandmother who used to send me a birthday present from Holland every year when I was a kid and she was still alive? John Howard was (and probably still is) a hard-nosed calculating man. He had to be if he wanted to become prime minister, didn't he? So you criticise Julia Gillard because she's a hard-nosed calculating woman? Aren't women supposed to be hard-nosed and calculating? Strewth mate, you're starting to sound like Tony Abbott!!
I've made my points about Rudd and I don't intend to go there again. I disagree with you, Spindrift - è basta!
In what way did Julia Gillard profit from the Laurie Oakes leaks for gorrsakes!!
Rudd has form on leaks today and he had it back then. In fact read Latham on Rudd's leaks. Where leaking is concerned, Rudd mightn't have balls but his prostate is working fine!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Mar 23, 2013 21:18:57 GMT 10
If the Labor Party had just settled down after getting rid of Rudd and sold its message properly, things would be a whole lot better for Labor than they are now. You don't get it. Its the PUBLIC that refused to settle down over Rudd's 'dismissal', not Labor. I think Labor did try hard to overcome it, but the PUBLIC will not let it rest. You can have the best policies in the world, but if the head seller is so loathed and despised, its not going to do one one beeping iota of good. The public are the ones who won't let it die because they want Rudd back. The sooner ALP supporters accept this fact and bow to the will of the people, the better. THEN the party will settle. If you expected the party to rally around Julia and the public to just accept it, you were delusional. Completely delusional. In this case, the public are setting the narrative and what the Labor caucus thinks and wants is completely irrelevant. Edited to add: to be honest, I think Labor pollies are pissed that the public wouldn't just give in, accept it, go away and shut up. The calls and begging and pleading from the public is just getting louder and louder. The public aren't going anywhere. And they won't shut up. In fact I read on some Rudd fan forums that they are thinking of holding regular mass protests out side Parliament House on sitting days to force Gillard to resign her commission and hand over to Rudd. They want her to resign her commission. This latest scheme concocted by Gillard, Crean and no doubt Conroy has just backfired and stirred up a hornets nest. These 3 and their minions expected the public to shut up and go away. They aren't. There is a mass movement out there, and its only going to get louder and more feverish. The public want their Kevin back. Who knows, if people power wins out, Rudd could be installed by August. Hawkie showed that needing a 'year to adjust' is bullshit when he took the leadership only weeks before the election and won. |
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Mar 23, 2013 21:48:03 GMT 10
But there's something else: when Rudd challenged in Feb 2012 and lost comprehensively, he made a pretty little speech to Gillard in front of the Caucus that not only would he not challenge again, but that he, Rudd, would be a steadfast bulwark of Gillard's prime ministership to the point that anyone who even remotely bore the slightest scintilla of an appearance of threatening Gillard's prime ministership would have to get past him first. Let's not mince words or split hairs about dictionary meanings here: Rudd promised Gillard in front of the Caucus that he wouldn't just support her leadership, he'd defend it. Somehow that little story has changed. In vintage Rudd doublespeak, before you could say "programmatic specificity" or "fair shake of the sauce bottle", the story has changed to "I won't challenge. I'll wait until I'm drafted, and it has to be overwhelming". Actually, he said both. He said that he wouldn't challenge again unless the overwhelming majority of the party drafted him, and that he would work with Julia. He said BOTH. He has never deviated from either of those two statements he made in front of caucus. Lol, this really kills me. Its ok for Gillard to be 'hard-nosed', 'power-hungry' and even actively work to destabilise the Rudd govt before it was even elected, yet its not ok for Rudd to do the same thing? Make up your mind. You display such double standards. Rudd is absolutely no different from Gillard in being hard-nosed, stubborn and determined, yet you only attack Rudd for it and give Gillard a free pass. Gillard is 'hard-nosed' with 'some mongrel in her'. But Rudd is a 'destabliser'. Oh, ok. If its ok for Gillard to be power-hungry, why isn't it for Rudd? Why the double standards? Why is it ok for one, but not the other? So hypocritical on so many levels. Lol, oh the hypocrisy.   You don't get it. The ONLY one who puts their ego above a government and the country is Gillard. She is the one who refuses to go, when any leader with the best interests of the Australian Labor Party's (and, from their point of view, the country's) would acquiesce to the will of the PEOPLE. Its beyond irony that you accuse Rudd of that. If he doesn't challenge, he has no ticker. If he does, he in his hubris is putting his ego before his party. You will excuse me if I find your incredulous statement hypocrisy. If what you said were true, Rudd would challenge for the leadership and actively continue to destabilise her. He has done neither. Instead he has stuck to his word on BOTH statements. Even saying he would tour and work closely with Julia. Bigger man than many. You have your head in the sand. You still don't get it. The issue is the public loathe Gillard with an intensity I haven't seen in a long time. Gillard treats the public with contempt and forces herself upon us when even Labor supporters don't want her. Its her own selfishness and hubris that is leading her to put herself and her ego behind a government, a good government that can only exist with the will of the people. If Gillard was genuine at all, she would have recognised that the public love Rudd and will never, ever accept her as Prime Minister; resign her commission on Thursday (past) and leave the way for Rudd to be elected unopposed. But she clings onto power for dear life, not caring or giving a shit what harm she does to her party or how many backbenchers and Ministers lose their seats (Swan will be the first one by calculations). She puts ego before a good government. Again, you don't get it. You are so stuck on the minutae and surface gloss, you don't see the big picture. What the hell good is record policy achievements, [red]IF YOU CAN'T SELL THEM TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DETEST THE SELLER?[/red] I know you think all Labor has to do is settle down, be united, sing kumbaya and sell and promote their arses off and everything will be ok, right? I never expected that level of naivette from you, of all people. The public will NEVER accept Gillard. They will accordingly never listen to her or what she and her henchmen are selling. You need someone that is liked or at the very least grudgingly respected. You live in a utopian fantasy world if all you think you need is unity and hard-pitch selling. Mate, the people stopped listening to the government as a whole the day she was put in as PM. Its too late now to say, lets all do the hard-sell, promote our achievements etc. If you don't have the right seller especially when you have a seller who is more despised than any modern political leader on either side that I can recall, your "achievements" don't count for Jack Shit. Thats what I've been trying to tell you but you are so consumed with your utopian "all we need to be is effective sellers" you can't see that its not the 'policy', its the PERSON. You could offer every voter a thousand dollars. They still wouldn't vote for the government because JULIA GILLARD is the leader. Its not about policy. Its about PEOPLE. None other than Gillard herself. Hellbent on her own party's destruction just because she and Timmy refuse to give up the Lodge and its perks. Howard stayed longer than he should and the people started to hate him and thus stopped listening thus 2007. This is 2007 (minus workchoices) in reverse. A good leader abides by the wishes of the people and knows when to hold or when to fold em. Howard's hubris at the end was his and the party's fatal flaw. While not having Howard's longevity, Gillard should know that she is a liability to the party, and thus go. They won 2007. But they didn't learn from it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 6:28:59 GMT 10
That was perhaps your finest missive I have seen Salem....impressive, and a good take on the situation and Gillard's leadership style, the public perception that somehow escapes the Gillard camp.
Rudd was dispatched because he was meant to be divisive, Rudd the factor in the blame game orchestrated by Gillard, and that continued with the Gillard camp failing to see what they are doing to Labor, to this day its blame Rudd by Crean who manipulated this latest challenge with Gillard's approval as a diversion to the latest fiasco of Conroy's botched media laws.....that isn't good leadership.
The people have had a gutfull of the Gillard childish school yard machinations...including me.
Gillard goes guts up with the carbon tax, mining tax, promised surpluses, even the "Sorry" to mothers was stuffed with selfish ambitions and power struggle that wasn't there...the polls have driven Gillard into selfish of oh blame Rudd ....childish behavior that creates the divisions where Labor is losing the good guys like Ferguson, Bowen etc
Rudd may have had his faults but he was certainly a whole lot better than Gillard, who has lost the electorate who see her as shifty and treacherous, and rightly so..
If not for the independents Windsor and Oakeshott she would have accomplished bugger all....more credit to them what ever Gillard was successful in achieving.
Rudd won't make a comeback Labor needs someone else that has the maturity and vision to create loyalty within the party. Rudd had the vision back lacked the loyalty that should have been given too him if not for the power hungry union backed members....turds that need to be flushed out, and bring back Labor that is for all the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 24, 2013 7:48:30 GMT 10
PIM likes "Bowen"?..
He's shifty. I don't like him. I'm glad he's gone!
Labor is done!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 8:03:04 GMT 10
And so is Juliar.  |
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 24, 2013 8:16:14 GMT 10
This is good... Margaret Thatcher had the same problem as Gillard... it pretty much boils down to egos... namely men's egos.
Please watch this when you have time...
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Mar 25, 2013 22:36:33 GMT 10
That was perhaps your finest missive I have seen Salem....impressive, and a good take on the situation and Gillard's leadership style, the public perception that somehow escapes the Gillard camp. Rudd was dispatched because he was meant to be divisive, Rudd the factor in the blame game orchestrated by Gillard, and that continued with the Gillard camp failing to see what they are doing to Labor, to this day its blame Rudd by Crean who manipulated this latest challenge with Gillard's approval as a diversion to the latest fiasco of Conroy's botched media laws.....that isn't good leadership. The people have had a gutfull of the Gillard childish school yard machinations...including me. Gillard goes guts up with the carbon tax, mining tax, promised surpluses, even the "Sorry" to mothers was stuffed with selfish ambitions and power struggle that wasn't there...the polls have driven Gillard into selfish of oh blame Rudd ....childish behavior that creates the divisions where Labor is losing the good guys like Ferguson, Bowen etc Rudd may have had his faults but he was certainly a whole lot better than Gillard, who has lost the electorate who see her as shifty and treacherous, and rightly so.. If not for the independents Windsor and Oakeshott she would have accomplished bugger all....more credit to them what ever Gillard was successful in achieving. Rudd won't make a comeback Labor needs someone else that has the maturity and vision to create loyalty within the party. Rudd had the vision back lacked the loyalty that should have been given too him if not for the power hungry union backed members....turds that need to be flushed out, and bring back Labor that is for all the people. Thanks Spindrift. I will admit, despite trying to hide it for so long in the interests of party politics, I do have a soft spot for Rudd and would like to see him as Prime Minister again. |
|
