Obviously you will be a happy chappy if Rudd wins.

I wont.

I was wrong when i said to my Mrs at Australia Zoo in 2004 or 2005 that Rudd will never PM. I did not take on board what was to come with the opportunities created by the sad Latham experience and growing disdain for Beazley.

But, given i do often express more faith in public opinion, I am dumbfounded how Rudd could be more popular than Gillard. I hope the Caucus overwhelmingly rejects the Rudd bid. I personally find him to be extremely overrated, incapable of working with a team, and one of the wost politiicians I have observed in recent decades as an adult and politial student.

I am just hoping that the Labor MPs realise that even Rudd cannot save them from being on the nose over policy, and that team work and other considerations influence their decision.

I think what we are seeing here Chris Lewis is a manouvering by public servants to engraciate themselves with prospective leaders to further their personal careers.There would be many in the PS who know how Kevin thinks and a bit of nepotism makes up for hard work and ability.

My how easily we forget! Rudd was extremely unpopular with the electorate before he was sacked (stabbed). Now he has been 'reborn'. All smiles and civility. This would have to be the greatest circus and certainly the biggest catastrophe for the nation since Whitlam. Shorten who engineered the stabbing of Kevin Rudd has been, according to the media, negotiating with Rudd for the treasurers position. These creeps are no better than the mafia in my view. Gillard hasnt had a fair go..not that she deserved a 'fair' go. I think I'll vote for the Secular Party at the next election and to hell with the rest.

The Labor Party was so deperate over Rudd's unpopularity that they threw him out as PM. And now they want us to believe that only he can win the next election? OMFG

...One description never applicable to Rudd was "Clown": I am sure Gillard was born with a little green cap with a bell on top.

...I personally support Rudd 110%, and hope that he does manage to topple the leader of the three ring circus, Gillard, and restore some respectability to the ONCE great Labor party!

Of course its all about Kevie, for IMHO what we have here is a bitter
man, wanting to get even. Its all very well for Theresa to say that
Kevie worked hard. That is not what its about.

To be PM you need to be able to lead a team and get on with them.
Kevie failed at that, that is why he was removed. His own workmates
dumped him.

A vote for Kevie will mean complete chaos within labor and they
won't win anything. All very sad really, how Labor is about
to destroy itself.

Ruddy horror picture show is back in town:

"It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane,
Let's do the Rudd Warp again!"

"It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me
So you can't see me, no not at all
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention
Well-secluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
You're there in the time slip
And nothing can ever be the same
You're spaced out on sensation, like you're under sedation
Let's do the Rudd Warp again!

But after next Monday, he'll have to be satisfied with a back bench seat where he can once again contemplate life, the universe, and eat his own ear wax.

When this Cr-p is all over, there will be a fundamental change:

Chifley's and Labour's legacy, of 'The Light On The Hill' will forevermore be replaced by Rudd's, Gillard's and Labor's new legacy of 'The Fight On The Hill'.

I was hoping against hope that Rudd would bow out of the challenge. But this is not to be, and given the man's ego and sense of having been wronged, that is hardly surprising.
So now it comes down to a fight on Monday, and then either Rudd or Gillard will go the backbench.
Hopefully that will be an end to this particular sad saga in the Politics of Oz.
Meanwhile Abbott is waiting for the prime minister-ship that he thinks is his by right. If he installed Turnbull as Treasurer, he would have a better chance.
One question: Why is Abbott supposed to be so on the nose with women? His marriage seems to be a good one, and he and his wife have raised three daughters. What's not to like about that record?

The biggest disappointment for me is the fact that K Rudd has failed to secure himself a position with the United Nations. This despite, I'm sure, a glowing reference from J Gillard, who must know full well that with Kevin out of the way there's no viable other candidate for the Labor leadership.

halduell I don't think it's so much that he's on the nose with women, as his budgie smugglers are on the nose with the feminists/women's libbers. As you probably know most of them are both lefties & noisy, hence the perception.

It would be interesting if Graham had some demographics on that, from their surveys. It should tell us how much noise, coming from feminists actually rubs off on real women.

Now that the dopes are confessing Kevin's
"crimes" they seem to have been non-existent.

Honestly some people are stupid.

A number of things happened after Rudd was elected.

1. He did not whole heartedly support everything Israel did, so the zionist like Arbib and Gillard didn't like it. Fancy defending a country who used forged Australian passports to murder someone in another country - every other country acted swiftly to kick out the diplomats.

2. He wanted to support or abstain from the vote for Palestine to be in UNESCO, Gillard voted against it as if the people of Palestine don't matter a hill of beans.

3. he was anti her stupid illegal push aways of refugees to Malaysia and he was proven to be right on that on all accounts. I don't know if anyone is aware of one fact that is an outrage - more people have killed themselves in illegal refugee prisons under Gillard than for all the 18.5 years before. Gillard though stood and told victims of Sri Lankas killing fields they would be sent to permanent prison in Malaysia or deported because Rajapaksa was so nice now. The records show that after the deportation of 66 Sri Lankans in 2010 only 14 have been removed. The acceptance rate for them is now running at over 90%.
4. Gillard gloated when the AFP shot at refugees like fish in a barrel, without realising they were shooting at the staff as well and endangering their lives.
5. Gillard has built more refugee prisons than anyone ever.
6. Gillard passed illegal retrospective laws to claim that anyone who helped a refugee anytime in the last 12 years was a criminal who had to be jailed for 5 years without a trial.
7. she has extended the racist intervention in the outback and is now driving young aboriginal girls to suicide for the first time ever.

Most of Australia can't abide her, but we can't abide Abbott either.

I wonder how we got to this.

Here's the best case scenario: Rudd wins, calls an early election to legitimise his position, and gets turfed out by the Australian people along with the whole pack of his cronies. Labor then goes away and works out why its daft ideology and union-dominated administration invariably turns its good intentions into hapless catastrophe.

Listen to what his OWN colleagues are saying. Rudd is a disturbed man. He has serious personal defects which we wouldn't put up with in any co-worker let alone someone who wants to run the country. The author fails to realise that these aren't the exaggerations of his enemies but consistent and factual accounts from the Rudd Files.

If Abbott had been caught at a strip joint paid for by the public purse, overheard abusing cab drivers or swearing at young flight attendants for not finding his special meal he would have been portrayed as a right wing neo-nazi bully boy with a hatred of women.

Rudd has been able to escape any scrutiny for his bizarre behaviour because people have fallen for his boyish happy-little-vegemite glow and his glib superficial explanations of his aggressive outbursts.

Gillard may be devious and incompetent, but Rudd is in a class of his own.

Gillard, absolutely.

That’s not an endorsement for her as a good PM, it is simply a preference between her and Rudd.

Crikey people, Rudd was exterminated as PM for a very good reason. Labor’s ‘faceless men’ wouldn’t have taken the extraordinary step of toppling the PM without a very good reason.

The last thing this country needs is Rudd mark 2.

There are 103 people in the Labor caucus. If Rud gets the support of, say, thirty of those members, he may lose but he and his supporters will act like wrecking balls during the short time left until the election. Only one or two of them has to skip a vote in parliament and the government is gone.

How about this ? If Rudd gets anywhere near thirty votes on Monday, then they BOTH resign and retire to the back bench for the duration of the government with their mouths wired shut, while a third candidate is chosen as Prime Minister, someone who has the genius and skills to quickly negotiate a deal with the Greens, Wilkie, and/or the three independents - and then to work as an effective prime minister.

That candidate would also have to be someone who was a bit friendly with both Rudd and Gillard, at least to the point where neither one would do the dirty on him/her while he/she tried to steer what's left of the government coalition to the next election.

Yes, you're probably right: so many ifs.

So a Steven Bradbury election for Abbott by the end of April ?

Joe

I liked the political comment:

"Kevin Rudd says he can win the voters, she can’t. Julia Gillard says she runs a functional government, and his was shambolic. Both are right. Caucus members face an invidious choice. Whatever they do — and at this point they are expected to re-elect Gillard — it will be a disaster. In less than five years, thanks mainly to two leaders who have been bad in very different ways, this Labor government has become almost as discredited as the Whitlam one all those years ago."

My preference as a Liberal is to keep Juliar as PM, as with her leading Labor, Abbott does not even need to campaign.

Read James Button's article in todays Canberra Times Forum section. Rudd's reputation is well known.

The strategy is transparent - thanking supporters repeatedley and pleading with supporters to approach their MPs. Other than in QLD perhaps, talking about all the support and thanking people as though it is taken as a fait a compli does not make it so. It is pyschological mumbo jumbo - say it often enough and people will start to believe it.

Think people. Atman, Yabby and Chris Lewis echo the sentiments.

Gillard has had a difficult job for many reasons not least including a hung parliament, some faux pas about real Julias and inability to let the public see her 'close-up', and add to that internal bickering and eroding of confidence from the sidelines.

Can one be optimistic that the public is going to show some sense and not fall for the 'new' Kevin?

<< How about this ? If Rudd gets anywhere near thirty votes on Monday, then they BOTH resign and retire to the back bench for the duration of the government with their mouths wired shut, while a third candidate is chosen as Prime Minister. >>

I like it Loudmouth. But who would have << the genius and skills to quickly negotiate a deal with the Greens, Wilkie, and/or the three independents - and then to work as an effective prime minister. >> ?

How about Kelvin Thomson?

Second choice: Craig Emerson.

Link to Canberra Times article:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin-20120224-1ttxx.html

All the Juliar supporters would have to be the biggest fools on this earth if they think she can win the next election. If Juliar is still PM after Monday then Labour will be wiped out next election and I will be laughing at all the Juliar supporters. How anyone could trust her is astounding as she has lied to everyone from the start and I would not trust her to lead a girl guides group.

If Rudd wins it will be a demonstration of the merits of disloyalty and personal ambition.

If he is such a marvellous public campaigner, why didn't he put those super-powers to use earlier and help his party instead of skulking around in the background, leaking and trashing his opponent?

It was only a couple of years ago that the media were against him, calling him "Kevin O Lemon" and saying "Rudd's a Dud".

Face is Kevin, you had your chance and you stuffed it.

What a mess! I can't for the life of me understand
why Mr Rudd did not allow things to take their
"natural" course. Why didn't he just allow the PM's
ratings to continue to crumble. And wait until he
was asked to challenge her prior to the next election?
Now it all seems like a case of sour grapes on his part.
Payback time for the wrongs done to him - at least that's
how it appears to many voters. Not a good scenario for
Labor. And such a pity all round because the only winners
here appear to be the Coalition and the Greens.
Even Heaven won't be able to help us all -
if Mr Abbott and Co get into power.
It's back to the past we go - only this time it's even
more of a conservative, right-wing past - where cut backs
on infrastructure will be even more severe.

Lexi is right on the money. This is amateur hour. Why would you not wait until near the end of the government's term, if things are looking dire, before making a leadership change? Nothing at all can be achieved on Monday, except to ensure continuing speculation and paralysis for the remainder of this government's tenure.

The feral performance by the most senior cabinet members in Gillard's government over the last few days makes Rudd's victory impossible. They have made it quite plain that it would be all out war and that makes a Rudd victory on Monday unthinkable. At the same time, Rudd will harness enough support to make a decent contest of it on Monday. He can't resign because of the minority government status. Leaving us with what: never ending speculation and media baiting making government impossible and Abbot gleeful?

What a shamozzle?

Have I got this right?

Is it all about the importance of NOT being Tony?

(With apologies to Oscar Wilde and "The Importance of being Ernest".)

Here is my understanding of the current situation:

--There are no great political, ideological, philosophical or policy differences between the Gillard and Rudd camps. They simply hate each other.

--The Gillard camp say they deposed Rudd in June 2010 because he was some kind of a psychopath. They nonetheless appointed this supposed "dysfunctional" and "chaotic" man to the post of foreign minister.

--The great Australian electorate, forgetting in what low esteem they held Rudd in June 2010, are now supposedly clamouring for his return.

--Rudd is selling himself as the man who can stop Tony Abbott becoming Prime Minster. The Gillard camp is saying they can do it without Rudd's help.

--The message coming from ALP politicians is "We know we're a bunch of rectal cavities but at least we're not Tony Abbott."

--The only smidgeon of comfort for ALP supporters is that, by a hairsbreadth, their party is not as dysfunctional as the Republican Party in the US. However that could still change.

--Eighteen months is a long time in politics and Tony Abbott may yet self-destruct but only a fool would bet a large sum on Tony Abbott NOT being prime minister by the end of 2013.

Is this a fair summary?

Good summary, but I don't think Monday's ballot will be a two way affair. No matter what happen's, Labor spin doctors will want it to demonstrate and be able to sell its cred as an internally democractic party. They know its not about Gillard or Rudd, but about the perception of the party over a longer period of time. They need to come away with at least a 45 % support for Labor, no matter who captain's the sinking ship.

There have been suggestions that if Rudd was able to become Prime Minister again he would emulate Napoleon, who made a similar comeback.

The problem is that if Rudd did a Napoleon, Abbott would do a Duke of Wellington.

I endorse everything Marilyn Shepherd said. Although Rudd is no major radical by any means, Gillard is infinitely more compliant to US and corporate media interests than he ever was or is ever likely to be.

And doesn't anyone find it suspicious that soooo many articles, interviews, broadcasts, editorials and op eds have all suddenly come out dancing exactly the same chorus line as the factions who dumped Rudd? Throughout the entire mainstream media, there is not even the minutest departure from what is shaping up to be a very stringently controlled script. And I just wonder who is controlling it.

For a contender with almost no chance of gaining a majority vote on Monday, why the character-assassination overkill? If the guy was even half as pathological as the supposed tell-all insider accounts of the last few days, why did his colleagues vote him in as leader in the first place? He'd been around a long time - long enough for his character traits to be well known to everyone who dealt with him.

There is something very fishy going on here. But what else is new?

Anyone else see Albanese's pathetic performance tonight? His tears were those of a very weak man fearing he would pick a 'loser' and consequently unwilling to commit himself either way until the very last. In order to avoid being associated with a losing candidate he essentially has had an each way bet, 'I will vote for Rudd but I still like Julia'

This whole things this is becoming an outrageous joke. The Labor party are acting like a group of emotionally incontinent schoolgirls, in tears and full of regret and recrimination over what someone said to someone else.

And lying silently, waiting for their opportunity to pick over the carcasses are Arbib, Shorten and Paul Howes, the faceless men who caused the whole debacle and who hope to discover rich pickings later on.

Atman,

You may be right, but it is also possible that Albanese, a decent sort of bloke, knows bloody well that this will be the end of the Labor Party for at least a decade, and perhaps forever. It's quite okay to choke up at a funeral.

Arbib, Howes and Shorten may have the bones to pick over for a very long time to come, if that is their intention. Or they will have the huge task of re-building a party whose time may have passed, as its working-class base erodes away and moves to the Coalition, and its 'progressive' wing [have things sunk so low ?] joins the Greens.

'Party' is perhaps inappropriate:'wake' may be more relevant.

Marilyn Shepherd,
You are absolutely correct. It always seems a shame that respondents on these fora ignore rational facts such as those you present, in favour of spouting their ‘gut feelings’.
There is not one person in either of the two large parties capable or decent enough to govern. Australia has finally got the ‘government’ it deserves. The only hope for surviving the future is a parliament of independents directly accountable to their electorates, who debate rationally until they reach consensus. We do not need either parties or presidential-style prime ministers. We have a speaker of the house to keep debates civil and a good bunch of civil servant ‘experts’ to give representatives advice.

<< Now that the dopes are confessing Kevin's "crimes" they seem to have been non-existent. >>

Hells bells Marilyn Shepherd, how do you come to that conclusion?

A number of things happened after Rudd was elected, that you didn’t mention:

He considerably boosted immigration to a new record high above the already record high level under Howard as soon as he became PM, without mentioning any intent to do so in the election campaign.

He boosted and entrenched the absurd continuous expansion paradigm of ever-continuing population growth and ever-increasing economic growth with increased non-renewable primary resource production and all the other unsustainable activities that go with it, right at the point in our history where we really needed to embrace a paradigm of sustainability.

He blew Howard’s border-protection policies wide apart, which is something I would have thought you’d condemn him for, Marilyn.

You are criticising Gillard for all of the horrible negative consequences of the greatly increased onshore asylum seeker movement ( eg; << Gillard has built more refugee prisons than anyone ever >> ), but you are apparently excusing Rudd of any responsibility!!

Sure, she has stuffed up on this issue, but it was Rudd who dumped Labor, and the whole country, and thousands of desperate people, in this enormous asylum-seeking mess.

Supporting Gillard over Rudd does not imply ignorance of some of the Gillard Government failures.

The only thing fishy going on is the impact of one man's ego and ambition. The idea that Rudd was sitting back waiting to jump in when the polls wavered to save the ALP at the last minute would be one thing, but the reality is he acted to erode her leadership from the beginning. It is understandable to some extent at a personal level considering his loss of the leadership role but what about the future for Labor?

The rest of the party is damned if they do and damned if they don't. In explaining the decision to depose a sitting PM it comes down to behaviour and about getting things done properly (pink batts etc). How do you explain it honestly without looking like character assassination to a public who sees Rudd as the underdog. It is difficult but the truth often is even if it makes you unpopular.

cont/...

I cannot see how the US or Israel relationship differs in any way under Rudd or Gillard. Rudd is good at admonishing publicly eg. China human rights but did he actually do anything - were their sanctions over Tibet? Coal as it turned out was more important. Rudd as I remember (correct me if I am wrong) was to abstain from a vote on Palestine and to expel an Israeli diplomat. The passport affair made that all too easy but it was hypocritical given Australia admitted to forging passports and that Israel and Australia had an agreement to station intelligence agencies in each other's regions. They may look like good symbolic gestures granted but one or two good symbolic acts on their own do not a PM make. Unfortunately governments of all stripes are good at staging but whether there is any long term change is another matter.

One thing I agree, the ALP is solely at fault for installing him as leader to contest the election in 2007 given his reputation.

Nobody is all bad or all good - Rudd or Gillard. But overall if there is no consultation on policy both within and without then it is a dictatorship not a consultative democracy.

The future will be about seeing through the campaigning to the substance and that is not always easy no matter who is in power.