We can easily get lost among the claims and counter claims by the Pro Gillard and Pro Rudd camps. Yet there are but two speeches that define the distinctions between the two. The first was Rudd's press conference before leaving New York. For me two things stood out. The first was his 'take' on the history of his prime minister ship. It would seem that he and he alone was responsible for all the outstanding achievements. No mention of the fact that the nature of his governance undermined the capacity of Garrett to implement the home insulation programme. At the time he left Garrett out to dry even though the failure of the policy was a direct result of an inability to apply due diligence to the implementation of that policy -a Messiah who wants to only take the credit for the successes is a false prophet. I would also question whether or not we want to encourage any person who sees himself as the 'salvation" of the Australian people to take up residence anywhere than in the secure wing of a psychiatric ward.
Gillard's news conference focussed on the achievements of the Gillard team - we may have our disagreements about these achievements but at least we can accept that a leader who consults and works as a loyal team member is far more likely to have the interests of the country at heart than someone who sees himself as the centre of the universe.
Pity is of course that Abbott and Rudd appear to be cut from the same cloth - Australia faces a bleak future with either as prime minister.

I don't call a CO2 tax in the interest of our country when no one on the planet has implemented to the degree that Gillard Labor has.More manufacturing will more off shore.They think they can defy the laws of gravity and walk on water.That myth is about to be busted.

Baygon,
It begs the question how mindless are the supporters ?

Individual - true we need to take some responsibility for the quality of leadership. The messiah trend has been evolving for a while - Hawke, Keating and Howard all had it to varying degrees - that is why I found Gillard's response to Rudd refreshing; at least she was describing her role in terms of being a team leader, rather than some tin pot dictator. I fear that if Labor chooses Rudd then it will only serve to consolidate an unfortunate trend towards presidential style politics without the requisite checks and balances.

In his vision for an overpopulated Australia Rudd has shown himself unaware of a global crisis. In his placing of chaplains in the public schools in Queensland later extended to the whole country by Howard, Rudd has shown himself unaware that this is a multicultural society and inappreciative of the vision that the founders of an independent Australia showed in s. 116 of the Australian Constitution. In Queensland Scripture Union has supplied most of the chaplains. SU espouses a fundamentalism which corrodes the brain and counters the critical thinking which I think schools should encourage. It is quite a popular position to ignore uncontroled population growth and to further the interets of fundamentalist Christianity. I think it is also very stupid.

Davidf said;
In his vision for an overpopulated Australia Rudd has shown himself
unaware of a global crisis.

I disagree, it was his government that suppressed the BIRE 117 report
on fuel supply outlook. He is well aware of our precarious position in
fuel supplies.
Just to equal it out Gillard has not reversed that decision.
To think that our politicians are prepared to expose us to that sort
of risk without attempting to do anything about it or even to tell us
about the risk we face from the next couple of years ahead is enough
to put them out of government.
Tony Abbot does not escape that either as I am fairly certain that
he has been made aware also.

If you want to check here is the report.
http://aie.org.au/StaticContent/Images/Report_120106.pdf
Here is the mention of the report;
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/

The report was first put up on the government web site but removed
shortly after. A French journalist obtained a copy and put it up on
a French web site from where ASPO obtained it.

I really don't know which PM would be worse or better for that matter.
Frankly from our point of view I don't think it will make much
difference.
As far as Tony Abbot goes, he has been assailed by the labour machine
for some time, eg, it will be dreadful if he became PM etc etc.

I just wonder if all that rhetoric is just that.
So the choice for me is Rudd, Gillard or Abbot.

ps We are paying Tapis Oil price of $132.92 a barrel today.

i am so over the lot of em

here we got a choice
between a one man band[who thinks he alone is allways right]
and a wisp of grass..that blows in the winds of change
one who follows orders

one cant take order
the other follows any order

the result will only be dissorder
its only a matter of time

it took a rudd..to beat the rudd
or rather a howard like rudd]..to bring down the howard

those with her ear..want to keep the can do girl
and will fight to reject the one man band

rudd cant win..[just like a supa/nova..it has its final flareup
then melts back into subserviance...[juliar is allready there]

dont start me on the ab-bot
or that clownish sceming banker
waiting to do a juliar...on the liberal to chosen class
[only too willing to further exploit or demean the lower classes]

I am beginning to be convinced that Mr Rudd should
NOT challenge at this time for the leadership of
the Labor Party. It would be a bad move on his part.
He should simply be patient and sit it out on the
back-bench for the time being. This would embarrass
the heck out of his opponents. However, it would be
an excellent strategy. Let things take their natural
course. Let the PM lead the Party into the next election.

It will inevitably guarantee a Liberal win. Voters
will again be given a chance to experience life under the
Libs. For a short term. THEN at the next election, Mr Rudd
can challenge and guarantee a long-term Labor win.

By challenging now - Mr Rudd will be playing into the hands
of his opponents. Big mistake, in my opinion.

i agree..lexie
he would be best served with deneying
he has anything in mind with leading..

[at this time]..supporting the peoples choice

he should call for harmony
not unthinking obediance..to the faceless few..[if only we knew]

he should call for reform[openness]etc
im not ready to watych him carry out a bag
[after the flood..from a highrise..12 feet high
through knee dep water..

and juliars voice
is so much like fingernails..
lectruring down a moral black board..[with the faceless few writing her script]...and her doing as she is told..

anyhow..rudd would be wrong to run
he needs to bring reform..so the party is run
by those elected..representing the electors..

not any to big to fail corperate
special intrests...with the right mates in govt
let the flood come..[dont add to it..be a team player]

then do a war cabnet,,formed of the die hards..
[the current vocal supporters of both]
that must replace..the faceless few...
in the media...

and in the leaders mind
serve for the greater common good
not the elite faceless few..[hiding their spoil
in family trusts]..

[can 'the richest woman..
actually be rich..if her riches..are in the familie trust?]

is the trustee the trust
juliatr thinks she is the trust
rudd fels he is the trustee..but they are no different
from any other elite..

[selfish and self serving]..
perty party show pony loyalists..to their own ego/party/adgenda

not the common charity
under the common weal
common-wealth

not all for one
im/done

God help Australia.

What a choice the people of Australia have. Julia, Rudd, Brown, Abbott.

We're really stuffed now.

Time to vote for an alternate Party. Any Party but this lot of Loony Tunes. From an Athiest... God help us!

If Kevin Rudd is not now and in the past, better than Gillard I am blind.
So too are the Australian people,who poll in numbers from 66% to 80% for him.
Abbott is the only chance if Gillard survives.
If she leads ON Tuesday, my party has dropped all views it wants reform.
And that it wants Victory.

Dear Belly,

Do you really believe that Mr Rudd will be able to
get rid of the influence of the factions?

calling Gillard, Rudd or Abbott a Messiah only demonstrates the ignorance of those doing so. Many also thought Obama was a messiah. Thankfully the Messiah did come but most are to full of self righteousness to acknowledge Him.

will again be given a chance to experience life under the
Libs.
Lexi,
My experience under Labor is thus, I have to pitt my knowledge & ability against people who have nothing but a piece of paper given to them by some watered-down institution yet their "qualifications" give them unquestioned priority over my practical experience. yet it is I & people like myself who constantly bail these experts out of trouble when rings fall into a heap. Labor is the outfit who has created this idiotic situation which costs us so many jobs & causes untold misery & frustration. Good people being assigned to the unemployment queue whilst the useless gobble up whatever funding is so irresponsibly handed out.
This is my gripes with Labor. They support the hangers-on & persecute the decent.

Dear runner,

A lot of people thought Jesus was the messiah. The messiah was supposed to bring in the messianic age where nations shall study war no more and turn their swords into plowshares. No sign of it happening. A lot of deluded people followed and still follow the false messiah called Jesus. The messiah doesn't come back. A real messiah gets it right the first time. The souffle doesn't rise twice.

Lexi,

You're not just a pretty face, a good heart and a dazzling personality, you are very prescient as well: yes, Rudd should simply stay shtum on Monday morning, make Julia do the running, look like an idiot going for her own job, lead the Labor Party to defeat at the next election, then step in and take over the leadership and lead it to victory.

Yeah, ........ right ........ but ...... is Rudd the sort of bloke who would take over anything when it is in a disatrous state ? Or, like so many other Alpha males, and managerial psychopaths, will only step in when somebody else has done all the hard work and he can look good ?

Sorry, I've read too many Flashman* novels. And worked under too many Flashman* bosses. Mostly Aboriginal, almost all closely associated with the Labor Party, as it happens. Important 'names'.

Just a coincidence, of course.


*Flashman series of novels (Pan, Fontana, Harper Collins), by George McDonald Fraser, all brilliant.

Dear Davidf

when I compare the words and life of Jesus compared with your posts, I would be a fool to believe you.

Dear runner,

I just stated facts. Jesus did not do what the messiah is supposed to do the first time. You are free to reject truth, good sense and logic. Apparently you do.

Best wishes,

David

So, you have been looking for Australia's political messiah, he has been there all the time, one Peter Garrett. No its not a typo on my part, I will repeat it for those of you who have now stopped laughing, one Peter Garrett. Here's the drum, come next election Labor, aka Pete returns to their grass roots, with Pete fronting the new Labor band, same old faces but the difference will be they will all smile on q, Julia will be saying nice things about Kev, like "I love the geraniums in Kev's front yard." Kev will say nice things about Simon and Wayne, well not so much about Wayne.
Meanwhile Pete will be delivering (singing) Labor's policy speech to the strains of 'Power and the Passion' whilst pretending to be a constipated mongoose, and I say that in the nicest possible way. All this will take place in the new Labor heartland, 200 clicks west of Alice Springs. Is there a town hall at Walangawanu in the Tanami Desert? If you agree say nothing, they will think you are as silly as me.

lol..peter garrotte
why not penny wrong?

but in a way..your right
it needs to be someone..who can organise and oversee
the doings and goings on of the minesters..who run things in their own portfolio

as i once advised kevie....have special unions..of skills
that together..oversee a project...thus each project has different skills base..cause all govt stakeholders...are in the know

with enough small leaks
to stop the big leak that sinks it

who ever leads
must oversee..!

the servants of the people
from home not overseas...

we have perverted
the role of leader..with the role of pm and party whip

and the role of speaker
and quesioning time..

the 2 party machine is dead[dying]
what will rise from the ashes?

not a messiah
but many servants
under their master..the people
not party loyalists..but good people seeking the better vision

not more de-vision

UOG Penny Wong was ruled out as leader on the result of her intelligence test, she passed. Anyway what's wrong with bringing Keven07 back. As Australian PM in a previous life Kev ended World War II, eliminated third world poverty and put the first man on the moon all before lunch on his first day in the job. what can Julia do, she doesn't even have a good recipe for 'pumpkin scones'. Bring back Flo.

Paul1405,
why not bring back the worst we ever had ? He's still alive & costing us a fortune 40 years on.

I just love watching fanatics, both Feminists, Religious & Political. they are so caught up in their own Dogma. Nothing else is valid.

I see it here all the time.

I was asked once, "Do you know what causes all the troubes in the World?"
I answered, "Yes, I happen to know the answer to that. Women, Religion & Politicians."

They took off & refused to talk with me any more. Damm, & I was so looking forward to having that conversation.

They said that I was a facetious bastard. I didn't think that was very nice coming from such kindly Christian folk.

If I were a kind person, I might feel sorry for Rudd. He must be putting himself under tremendous stress.

Imagine trying to control a really nasty vindictive narcissistic personality, like his, It must be incredibly hard.

Then imagine trying to continually present the calm intelligent balanced leader he tries to act. That must be even harder. No wonder the poor bast4rd explodes from time to time, & lets a few moments of the real Rudd show through.

Not only does the poor man have to control that troubled personality, he has to some how suppress the greatest ego since Whitlam. Pity he has nothing to base that ego upon, except his twisted view of himself, & the world.

I really would like to know, how can Labor be so good at ferreting out these dreadful people to make their leaders. It must be a special skill, which only comes with a belief in socialism.

I guess I'm not going to make it as a kind person, just honest

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You've made me blush with all your kind words.
As for Mr Rudd? I can only go on his past record -
which was considerable. Getting us through the Global
Financial Crisis - was no small feat - and in order to
be able to do that he would have had to work with people.
So I wouldn't believe all this mis-information that's
currently being spread around about Mr Rudd's track record.
The facts - and those who really worked with the man tell
a different story.

Dear Jayb,

Add to your list of the causes of the world's problems
the following:

Greed, selfishness, and of course - ignorance.

Very few people are content with the bare necessities of life.

Dearest Lexi,

Well, credit where it's due - as a prospective member of MFC (Marxists For Costello), I remember vaguely that Howard-Costello did leave quite a budget surplus for Rudd-Swan(-Gillard) to squander on batts and school halls. And as well, our sales of raw materials to China was just starting to go through the roof at that time.

Take out our mining economy now and what is left ? Fletcher Jones has folded, Mitsubishi has gone under, Holden is in trouble, most of our food-canning factories are about to close up. We're about to be swamped by alien New Zealand produce. While Olympic Dam may carry South Australia's economy for the next couple of hundred years, once it is up and running, I worry about the rest of the country, rust-bucket towns like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane: how much longer can they survive ?

Love,

Joe

individual, do you mean Kamahl? Why are people so unkind? No I've worked it out, 40 years still costing us. Malcolm Fraser. I can't fathom how we managed to have the best PM since Ben Chifley, Gough Whitlam sandwiched between two real drongos Billy McMohan and Malcolm Fraser. What do you think?

Lexi: Add to your list of the causes of the world's problems
the following: Greed, selfishness, and of course - ignorance.

I don't have to add them Lexi, That's the very reason Women, Religion & Politicians are the cause of troubles in this World. The single mindedness of "My Dogma is the only Dogma" is what is killing the rest of us.

Hear that, you fanatics, leave us out of your deadly game! Take the middle way.

Dearest Lexi,

Don't worry about what Jayb writes, with his bile against women, he's probably a closet Islamist. He probably believes that all cultures, i.e. all male-dominated systems of belief in backward societies, are 'equal' and therefore both un-criticisable and unassailable.

So do you reckon I'm in with a chance ? Barbed-wire fence or not ?

Cheers,

Joe

Paul1405,
Yeah, Fraser et al do cost us a fortune but they're outdone by Oaf Whitlam who besides costing us 40 some years of insane pension on top of what he did to the country. To think that there are such morons in existence who think this bloke did well is beyond the boundaries of belief. But as they say history repeats itself, now we have Rudd (like Whitlam) & Abbott (like Fraser). At least Whitlam had enough sense to leave things alone.

Dear Jayb,

Winning at someone else's expense is an old paradigm and
an increasingly obsolete model of success. Separation
leads to disintegration and joining leads to miracles. ;-)

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I think its a shame that the government has made far too
little progress in repairing the damage left after a
decade of poor economic management by the Howard
government. Hopefully things will change after Monday.

Dearest Lexi,

At the risk of mucking up my chances at that barbed-wire fence, and as an ultimately-Labor-voter, isn't it true that Labor came to power on the back of Coalition (i.e. Costello) budget surpluses, which they squandered within a couple of years ?

I hate to express the slightest praise for the Coalition but isn't that what really insulated us from the initial effects of the GFC ? Then the mining boom kept us sort of inoculated from the after-effects of the GFC, in fact right up until now ?

Like you, I absolutely hate to give any sort of credit to the fascist, neo-colonialist, male-chauvinist, right-handed, thin (and pro-American!) coalition, but we surely have to acknowledge reality if we are to move into the future ?

Love forever,

Joe

Lexi,
you really need to see or talk to someone. You really do need help in differentiating between reasonably good & utterly incompetent. Don't worry though, you're not alone.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Ian McAuley, a lecturer in public sector finance at the
University of Canberra and a fellow at the Centre for
Policy Development tells us that:

The Coalition has had the fortune to hold office in good
economic times - including the postwar boom of the
1950s and 1960s and the period from 1996 to 2007 when the
Howard government enjoyed the dividends of the Hawke-Keating
economic reforms, and the world economy was enjoying a long
speculative-driven boom. Good luck, perhaps, but not good
management.

Talking about leaving the books in surplus - McAuley stresses
that the Howard government did achieve a series of surplus
budgets. That is not diffcult in a time of strong economic
growth which delivered very high tax revenues.

However, the Howard government also left Australia with significant
liabilities in terms of our physical and intangible assets -
our common wealth. McAuley points out that the Howard government
neglected our surface transport - our interstate roads, railroads
and urban public transport. It starved our tertiary education
sector of funds. It neglected investments which could help
us to cope with the challenges of water shortages, climate
change and fossil fuel depletion. In short, it let fiscal
impression management displace sound economic management, and
directed political attention to only one side of the public
balance sheet, the debit side, while ignoring the asset side.

As McAuley points out, if the Howard cabinet had been the board
of a publicly listed company, the shareholders would have
thrown them out for weakening the company's asset base.

Therefore I again state that it was thanks to Labor that we survived
the global financial crisis and they still have a lot of progress
to do to repair the damage left after a decade of poor economic
management by the Libs. Hopefully this will continue to take
place after Monday regardless of who the Labor leader is.

Loudmouth: Don't worry about what Jayb writes, with his bile against women, he's probably a closet Islamist. He probably believes that all cultures, i.e. all male-dominated systems of belief in backward societies, are 'equal' and therefore both un-criticisable and unassailable.

Well loudmouth you definately picked the appropriate pseudonym. Wrong on all counts. Darrrh! You're out. I supported the equality of women from the early 60's. I pulled the boards of the front of the house which became "Elsie House" in Sydney. You had better look "Elsie House" up. I lived 3 years in an Islamic country. Definately not a closet Islamist or an Islamist of any discription. I believe in equality for all. Not a greater equality for some because they are women, or a different culture etc which is what happens now.

The gist of my arguement is that, there are Left & right wing Politics & their followers, who are blinkered by there own paticular left or right wing Dogma & they won't look beyond that view for the sake of good Governance so we are stuck with the crap Politicians we have now.

So, as the name implys, Loudmouth, Empty vessels make the most sound.

Dear Jayb,

There are politicians and there are politicians.
We have our fair share of seat-warmers, hacks,
carerists, adventurers. However we also have
ones that belong to a different parliamentary
tradition. They're the unpredictable ones who
go into Parliament to bring about particular reforms.

We can only hope that they are the ones who will lead
our parties and achieve positive outcomes for the good
of our country and its people.

Of course most people tend to see the world from a
viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpretation based
on personal values and experiences. If the world
consisted simply of some self-evident reality that
everyone perceived in exactly the same way - there might
be no disagreement among observers. But the truth of
the matter is that what we see in the world is not
determined by what exists "out there." It is haped
by what our past experience has prepared us to see and by what
we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

Jayb,

You've caught me at an embarrassing moment - here I am, trying to sweet-talk Lexi into dropping that barbed-wire fence, and you come along and put that reality on me.

But I have to suggest that women in general are hardly responsible for any of the world's problems - seriously, do they really have power even in today's societies ? Where do we hear of young men being killed for not marrying who their parents decide, and for not carrying out their 'marital' duties ? Where is there honour killing of men for playing around with other women ? In what country do they throw acid over young boys going to school ? Or burn their schools ?

Seriously, in what society on earth do women - qua women - dictate to the rest of their societies ? After thousands of years of male dominance (thankfully coming to an end), isn't it true that - in every country where it has occurred - women in politics have, with the odd hassle and human failing, advanced, added to, the political life of every country where they have been able to lift their heads ?

I hope that, by the time I shuffle off, the issue of women or men running governments will be as irrelevant as right- or left-handers doing it. Speaking as a left-hander, of course.

lexi: They're the unpredictable ones who go into Parliament to bring about particular reforms.

& they either do as they are told by the Party Bosses, or their out.

Lexi: It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

Too true Lexi. I'm a people watcher with a good memory for what gone on before behind the scenes. Some of which I was involved in many years ago. As my CO once told me, "I know too many people above my station in life" & I did.

Loudmouth: You've caught me at an embarrassing moment.

Sorry. Don't worry I've done it myself.

Loudmouth: isn't it true that - in every country where it has occurred - women in politics have, with the odd hassle and human failing, advanced, added to, the political life of every country where they have been able to lift their heads?

True, very true. But, tempered by the fact that women are extremely hard to work with. Especially for other women. Ie: "bad situation." 3 Kids, 3 dogs, 3 women in an office. "rowroueee, skiss!, skiss, spit spit." Hoowhaa! bitch fight. Sad, but true.

I think that's about me for 24 hours. See ya'all

The Coalition has had the fortune to hold office in good
economic times
Lexi,
Yes because when you look at those times you'll find that many other countries had conservative Government.
Look at the GFC, how many conservative Governments were then ?
Just because some parties call themselves conservative/democratis doesn't mean they are. Just look at this country, it's supposed to be democratic also but two independents can throw it all out the window. Same goes for economic management which appears to be a foreign phrase for Labor.

individual,

There was a big fat conservative/neoliberal government in power in the U.S. in the eight years preceding the GFC....busy they were deregulating and presiding over the whole unfolding economic cataclysm...and that's precisely the place where the economic rot took hold.

individual, you say "it's supposed to be democratic also but two independents can throw it all out the window" As a conservative you have to be consistent, at the last federal election the people failed to give a clear mandate to any one party, that left the independents and a Green holding the balance of power. Democracy has had to work as it will given the prevailing conditions, it was never going to work all that well given the constraints the people imposed by their vote. Previously you bought up the subject of the Whitlam Government. Conservatives then had no problem using an undemocratic senate to bring down a democratically elected government. Nor did conservative governments have any problem relying on a minority party the DLP in the senate to ram through what they wanted. I'm not a supporter of the Labor government but conservatives when not in government seem to think they have some god given right to 'call an election' whenever it suits them to take back power, and they call that democracy.

Poirot & Paul,
If you read my post again you'll see that's exactly what I said.

Paul,
The Whitlam Government had be be fought with fire with fire, there simply was no alternative.

Paul,

" .... conservatives when not in government seem to think they have some god given right to 'call an election' whenever it suits them to take back power, and they call that democracy."

Well, yes. That's how democracy can work. To gauge the will of the people, and enable the people to express that will. I don't know about 'god-given', it's probably a bit more mundane than that:

It's called 'politics'. Everybody does it: Gillard seemed to think she could do it in August 2010, and look how that turned out.

Individual: Its good to know that I can rest easy in the knowledge that when the people make a 'mistake' and elect one of those 'bad non conservative governments' that the reincarnation of Pig Iron Bob Menzies in the form of the masked avenger, 'Democratic Man', will swoop down with his flaming sward and smite the evil doers. We can call that democracy in action. The people are so fortunate that they can rely upon the likes of Rupert Murdock, Allen Jones, even Piers Akerman to call down 'Democratic Man' to do the deed on their behalf.

Loudmouth,

That's a rather selective view of the facts.

That "squandered" surplus was what saved us from the worst effects of the GFC.

The fact there was a surplus is not as significant as the economic stimulus strategy that was adopted.

Targetting the stimulus at the bottom level made sure that employment and retail confidence was maintained by putting more money into the economy at the retail level and the infrastructure programme kept the construction industry (and its suppliers) in work..

Other countries had surpluses too but their strategies failed because the stimulus was insufficient, applied too late or misdirected.

Everybody in the economic world has recognised the success of our strategy.

If it was the LNP in power, their strategy would have been -

1. Cut taxes at the top and corporate levels and
2. Reduce wages to "improve productivity"

because that's all they know how to do.

That probably would have resulted in the surplus being paid out as unemployment benefits instead.

Individual: You have got me thinking. How can democracy in Australia be improved, without the danger of a non conservative government being elected. Here is the plan, let me run it by you. Instead of millions of people trudging off to their local school or scout hall every 3 years or so to vote, and sometimes get it wrong, we have a panel of three typical Australians who represent a cross section of the Australian community, The Peoples Committee. I suggest the first panel consist of Andrew Forrest, Gina Rinehart and James Packer, Loclan Murdock could be first reserve in case someone pulls a sickie on voting day. We then have an impartial bloke with the 'gift of the gab', like Allen Jones to make the case before the committee as to who should form the new government. The panel then votes (no abstentions allowed) presto, instant democratically elected government. Then after say 20 or 30 years The Peoples Committee could meet again to elect the next democratic government. Sound good to me what do you think?

Hi Paul,

I assume you are not serious about three people deciding everything every thirty years.

That does sound a bit Assad-Mubarak-Gaddafi, even a bit Soviet and/or Maoist except that they didn't give anybody the option even after thirty years.

I think I'll stick with 12 million of us going off to the church hall or school assembly hall every three years. Mundane and Midsomer it might seem, but that's how people decide in a formal democracy, and it's sounds okay to me. Even if the b@stards vote for the party I don't like.

If you can think of a better system than democracy [God, how naive I must seem to the new crop of Trots], then put it forward.

Paul,
stop talking such counterproductive nonsense. Rudd/Gillard have to go as did Whitlam. This has nothing to do with Liberal/Labor. It's to do with the running of the country.
Labor can not manage. How many more times do you want thousands of people to work only to pay for taxes & fees for nothing in return.
It's ok if you're an academic or a bureaucrat but if you're a working person or a business operator than it's nothing short of disastrous under Labor.

Loudmouth my last 2 posts about 'Democratic Man' and 'The Peoples Committee' were flippant and meant as joke posts a bit of humor, something this site lacks at times. Like the typical Australians named are all billionaires, hardly typical Australians, and reference to Allan Jones as an impartial bloke, he is a well known ultra conservative. It would be obvious you could not have a democracy under those conditions, 3 people voting every 30 years,absurd, have to be at least 5 people every 20 years, don't take it serious another joke. In a true democracy we ALL have to vote. What ever the outcome the people have spoken through the ballet box.
Individual seems to think its acceptable that if the perception is the 'government is on the nose' as in the case of the Whitlam government in 75 and now the present government it quite all right to have it removed undemocratically, weather that is done by the Governor General or at the point of a gun, such action is not democratic and never will be, even if you try to stage a democratic election there after, that does not negate the previous undemocratic action. Conservatism has this 'born to rule' mentality about itself, non conservative governments are inherently bad and nothing but a mistake by the people and must be replaced forthwith. Once conservatism enjoyed total authority within our society, slowly over time, begrudgingly, it was forced to give that total authority up, the mass action of people demanding a say in how their lives were governed. I don't think conservatism has ever completely accepted universal suffrage. Its been more a case of "we'll give them their democracy as long as they agree with us." In the main non conservative governments, Labor governments in our case, have toed the line.

Paul, you're such a tease - you know that floating that idea of a three-man ruling group, with new choices every 30 years, would have many conclaves of Maoists and Trotskyites and assorted Indigenous Government cliques, all around the country, arguing hotly well into the night about:

* who those three should be, in the event of a Revolution, (undoubtedly each person arguing would see themselves as one of the three, perhaps the dominant one) and

* whether any 30-year change is even necessary, given the rightness of the original choice.

I've heard a report that one four-person clique of Trotskyites in Mt Isa actually came to blows, after a ten-hour meeting, and has formally split into a 4th International (Punctuated Disequilibrium) group and a 4.5th International (Permanent Revolutionary Footing) group, with one person undecided.

And at one Aboriginal Tent Embassy, (I think it was at Andamooka) members of two families are refusing to speak to each other after each claimed to be the original owners and therefore to have the permanent right to choose the three co-rulers forever. So now, as I understand it, there are two Tent Embassies at Andamooka (or wherever; no, it could have been Meekatharra).

See what you started, Paul !

I don't think we have enough democracy in our Westminster system of government. At the parliamentary level I would like to see MP's be given a more independent voice on issues and not have to toe the party line. Something akin to the American system where often Republicans will support a bill from a Democrat president and democrats oppose the same bill, without the party backlash that such action draws in Australia. We concentrate far too much on the cult of leader personality and not enough on the input of members and the issues there in.
At the electorate level, our system favors the two major parties far too much, giving each a too larger representation at the expense of independents and minor parties , who through the ballet box are entitled to a voice. I think 3 member electorates with preferential voting is far more democratic than the present system. In that way ordinary voters can lobby not one but 3 members on local and broader issues. At the moment if you are in say a cabinet ministers electorate its hardly worthwhile trying to lobby your local member on any issue. The minister is too busy to bother much with local issues and on broader issues will just maintain cabinet solidarity as they are bound to.

Well, it's all academic now. Julia's still the leader through a Caucus vote even though the majority of Polls show that the people wanted Rudd. Apparently no one wants Abbott.

My bet. Rudd will chuck a hissy fit & resign from Parliment & go into diplomacy.

Regardless of what we think here. All Political Partys are run by the Faceless unelected people behind the Partys. They tell the elected members of Parliment how & what is to be done. The PM & such like are only figureheads placed in front of us lowly minions.

The labour party is so closely associated (controlled by) the unions
that they are unable to operate without the approval of the unions.
Perhaps they should change their name to the Union party then they can
honestly abandon the claim that are legislating for all Australians.

The pretense that the left/right union factions do not control certain
members of parliament has been shown to be a lie in the Rudd kerfuffle.
I think it means that anyone who gets into parliament without the
approval of the unions and thus does not belong any faction cannot
ever attain a majority vote in caucus.

I might have some of this factually wrong but that is how it looks to me.

"My bet. Rudd will chuck a hissy fit & resign from Parliment & go into diplomacy."

I'd be surprised if he did that without some other trigger. He'd need something going on where he could be the victim forced out by the actions of the PM or senior cabinet ministers.

He may well get a plausable trigger if he plays his cards right.

R0bert

The PM has retained her leadership.
It is now up to her to get on with the job.
And for Mr Rudd and the party to present a
united front and convince the Australian voters
that Labor is the party to govern Australia.

We'll have to wait and see if this is possible.
Only positive outcomes will have the results
that many in the Labor party are hoping for.

JayB and RObert,

How can Rudd have any official diplomatic role if he is not employed by DFAT ? Or am I just naive ?

Unless Gillard appoints him, for life, to replace Tim Fischer as the Aust representative to the Vatican ? Or Ireland ? Or Iceland ? That must be tempting for Gillard.

So if Rudd stays, he is a constant thorn in Gillard's side, smouldering away back there. And if he resigns from Parliament, or abstains from some crucial vote on the floor of parliament, either way this government is gone.

And Labor with it, probably forever.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Oh Ye of Little Faith!

Don't be so sure! Mr Rudd told us that he would support
the PM and would give it all he's got to ensure the PM's
victory (And Labor's) at the next election. I believe him.
He is above all else - a strong Labor supporter - and he will
no longer give cause to the PM to worry. That is a given.
The PM on the other hand - has met the challenge beautifully -
and has come out of all this - the stronger. She acknowledged
her mistakes and I'm sure that she will rectify them - making
her a stronger leader in the process.

The focus now will be on delivering positive outcomes for the
Australian voters - and there's plenty of time to do just that
before the next election. Labor can win. The Opposition will
have to provide voters with proof as to why people should
vote for them. Their negativity to date if it continues - will
do them damage in the long-term - especially if they keep Mr
Abbott as leader. With him they have little chance of success.

Well the whole thing is a huge tantrum so I don't know why he didn't quit or do something more dramatic and bring down the government. Especially when they were all trying to paint him a psychopath, and any remnants of a 'legacy' are long gone and he will be remembered slightly above Mark Latham.

Why not cause more of a stir. I'm quite disappointed. I think it shows the guy is a titanic wimp.

He really should do something unexpected like join the Libs or something.

Maybe he should make a pass at Bob Katter. I want to see Rudd attempt to put his hands down Katter's Pants in parliament.

You have to wonder at the Labor Caucus. Latham, Rudd, well what kind of strange humans do they support man!

If the guy was sane, he could have just waited for the party to be so desperate they would have turned to him. Then he should have held a press conference, and stood on the table, dropped his pants, done a turd and put a little flag in it with a picture of Julia on it, and said he doesn't want to be prime minister, and it was the faceless men that made him do it.

In the end I have spent the whole week ringing around for numbers for KRudd and he's really disappointed me. I want to see some fireworks!

My god Lexi Goebbels. Or is it Comical Ali-lexi!

Dear Houellie,

Thanks for making me laugh out loud.
We need more from you on this Forum!

Lexi, do you like getting lied to? If not why are you suggesting Labor should tell yet another one?

Why else indeed would you suggest it is time "for Mr Rudd and the party to present a united front and convince the Australian voters that Labor is the party to govern Australia"?

The first part of that would have to be their biggest lie so far, but the latter I'm sure is just one of your little jokes.

Dear Hasbeen,

Mr Rudd has said in his speech on television
that he bears no ill-feeling
towards anyone and Labor is presenting a
united front as we can all see.
They do intend to get on with the
business of governing. However, if you like jokes -
you need to look at the leadership of the Coalition
that's the biggest joke in politics at present.
And it's not going to get any better prior to the next
election.

Ahhhh..., a coat of fresh paint over the rust always looks nice for a while.

but , you are right about the Coalition Lexi.

Same ol', same ol'. Business as usual.