There is no difference. Both Hawke and Gillard were ousted because the alternative candidates stood a better chance to win the next election, as did the erstwhile opposition leader, Bill Hayden, by the way. Nothing new in politics.rEvolutionist wrote:So then you shouldn't have a problem seeing the difference between now and the Hawke/Keating era.
Hermit wrote:There is no difference. Both Hawke and Gillard were ousted because the alternative candidates stood a better chance to win the next election, as did the erstwhile opposition leader, Bill Hayden, by the way. Nothing new in politics.rEvolutionist wrote:So then you shouldn't have a problem seeing the difference between now and the Hawke/Keating era.
He's a snivelling white-anting rat. I doubt it will be long before the public remembers why they hated him so much last time.At any rate, I prefer Rudd's policies and actions to those of Gillard's, and past polls confirm that I'm not the only one.
We are going to get a dose of what you guys in the UK have had in the last couple of years.Audley Strange wrote:Live my amoral backstabbing self interest, die by backstabbing self interest. Your labour party deserve a kick in the nuts and cunts for their behaviour over the last few years.
You're right the media assisted in Gillard's increasing unpopularity, but it's not as if the shrill arsehole needed much help. This is the problem with politics being a popularity contest. Still Abbot? Holy fucking Christ. He looks like he spawned from the same gene-vat as our cabinet.
You have my sympathy Oz.
It's not so much backstabbing as "the numbers game." All our political parties have factions, and whichever faction dominates decides who gets preselected for candidature. It is only after such a determination has been made that voters get their say. Is this much different to your system?Audley Strange wrote:Live my amoral backstabbing self interest, die by backstabbing self interest. Your labour party deserve a kick in the nuts and cunts for their behaviour over the last few years.
Absolutely not Hermit. It's exactly the same as rEv points out.Hermit wrote:It's not so much backstabbing as "the numbers game." All our political parties have factions, and whichever faction dominates decides who gets preselected for candidature. It is only after such a determination has been made that voters get their say. Is this much different to your system?Audley Strange wrote:Live my amoral backstabbing self interest, die by backstabbing self interest. Your labour party deserve a kick in the nuts and cunts for their behaviour over the last few years.
True, except for the last sentence. Many in the electorate, for whatever populist reasons, are going to be more inclined to vote Labour with Kevin back. I'm not really sure why, but the polls have made it clear that is the case.rEvolutionist wrote:So then you shouldn't have a problem seeing the difference between now and the Hawke/Keating era. Additionally, we've seen a Labor party cave in an attempt to save their own seats. They aren't thinking about stable governance. They are thinking about themselves. They are a party with next to zero credibility now.
However, it's not a single issue, the replacement of one leader by another that has hurt them, but a culture over a long period of time of factional in-fighting, personal ambition and long-running feuds that makes people disillusioned with the labour party. Julia began her career by being party to putting the knife into Kevin...rEvolutionist wrote:Regarding the credibility thing, they will get a bounce in the polls in the short term, but I think this is going to hurt them in the long term. This will stick with them for a long time.
Australian voters don't elect Prime Ministers. They elect individual candidates for each seat in the lower and upper houses. Whoever is Prime Minister is determined by the party itself. Most of the electorate is sufficiently aware of that to answer not "I voted for Gillard/Howard", but by replying "I voted for Labor/Liberals/The Mad Shooters Party."Audley Strange wrote:...to commit a coup in your own party against a prime minister that people elected...
It certainly has been harped on and played up by the mainstream, anti-labour media. However, there is enough meat there to start with...rEvolutionist wrote:If you listen to the media (and the Opposition) narrative, most of the electorate allegedly doesn't know that. In fact, the narrative for the last 5 odd years has been entirely personal. But either way, there's no getting past the point that the Labor party is a tarred as a party of massive internal division and one that thinks more about it's internal politics than the national politics. But to be clear, that's just the narrative. Not necessarily the reality.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests