ALP Doomed but how many seats will they get?

I think the tie thing is very amusing.

For those that haven't noticed most Rudd supporters and many Libs are wearing blue ties.

Rudd wearing very 'in your face' blue ties.

Gillard supporters wearing coloured ties, though in the last couple of days some have resorted to no ties at all.

Should we be working out the odds on number of coloured ties or who is wearing blue ties ie. Shorten in a blue tie means Gillard is gone :).
 
All the faceless ladies-men would be sitting in the back rooms cutting up the straws to see who draws the short one too see who is going to take on miss Gillard,if they don't then labor is finished,even with a new hairstyle from first-bloke Tim ..
 
...if they don't then labor is finished...

I don't think it matters either way.

It's a case of deckchairs on the Titanic for the ALP atm.

The SS ALP is at full steam, the iceberg is dead ahead, and instead of paying attention to where they're going, in the wheelhouse they're all bickering about where they have been....
 
I don't think it matters either way.

It's a case of deckchairs on the Titanic for the ALP atm.
I saw one of the local federal mp's the other day in the street and he had a black eye and he is a miss Gillard person maybe he walked into the wrong room..
 
I saw one of the local federal mp's the other day in the street and he had a black eye and he is a miss Gillard person maybe he walked into the wrong room..

I was wondering about that.

Not saying he didn't walk into a door but lots of rumours going around about a few unusal personal and not so personal things (where there is proof) involving Labor atm and the media aren't going there - including News Limited.

Very strange days.
 
Caucus??

As I mentioned earlier I am fascinated by this election and find myself wanting to know more about how our Australian Political movement works.

I have googled this but references seem to be about the US.

I know now that Labor has a Caucus but does the Coalition have a Caucus or is the Caucus only associated with Labor and the Trade Union Movement??


ps - thank you for adding the spellcheck to Somersoft!!
 
The word was introduced to Australia by King O'Malley, an American-born Labor member of the first federal Parliament in 1901; it presumably entered New Zealand politics at a similar time. In New Zealand, the term is used by all political parties, but in Australia, it is restricted to the Labor Party. For the Australian Liberal and National parties, and for all parties in Ireland (not a Commonwealth country) and the UK, the usual term is "parliamentary party".

From wikipedia
 

Read the paragraph after that one and will point out that Caucus appointing MP's may be traditional but not how it works now.

In some parties, the caucus also has the power to elect MPs to Cabinet when the party is in government. For example this is traditionally so in the Australian Labor Party and the New Zealand Labour Party.

Rudd changed it so all the power is now with the PM (and I assume with a Labor Leader of the Opposition) only.

I don't think the change worked in their favour however with the recent history of loyalty rating above talent.
 
Rudd changed it so all the power is now with the PM (and I assume with a Labor Leader of the Opposition) only.

I don't think the change worked in their favour however with the recent history of loyalty rating above talent.

Personally I think it's an improvement - it brings Labor into line with how the Coalition party room works. One person is elected leader by the whole room and that one person is given full authority to decide on their Cabinet / shadow Cabinet. Pretty close to how it works in business too with the Board electing a CEO who picks their executive team. If the leader / CEO makes bad decisions then the natural response is to get rid of them, as we have constantly heard speculation about for the last few years...

It's still called a caucus around the world regardless of how cabinet spots are chosen. Just a matter of tradition / nomenclature whether you want to call it a party room or a caucus. The term "caucus" was a Labor person's idea in Australia so naturally the other guys had to come up with a different name!
 
Both Rudd and Gillard have demonstrated the main criteria for picking the cabinet was done purely to promote personal support, something that is not generally tolerated within many other organizations or parties.

Rudds conceded it was a bad move (although ok when he was PM) and so do others within Labor.
 
One person is elected leader by the whole room and that one person is given full authority to decide on their Cabinet / shadow Cabinet.

Yes.... and keep the powerbrokers happy....

Something RJL Hawke forgot and which contributed to his downfall in 1991:

"Graham Richardson felt that the importance of his contribution to Labor's victory would automatically entitle him to the ministerial portfolio of his choice—Transport and Communications. He was shocked, however, at what he perceived as Hawke's ingratitude in allocating him initially Defence, and then later, Social Security instead. He vowed—in a telephone conversation with Peter Barron, a former Hawke political staffer—to do 'whatever it takes' to 'get' Hawke. He immediately transferred his allegiance to Keating and subsequently claimed credit for playing a vital role in Keating's campaign for the leadership as a numbers man. Interviewed by John Laws a few months following announcement of the Fourth Hawke Ministry, Richardson commented on his new portfolio, feigning interest:

"When I got it, I was pretty shocked – I must say it's not something I'd ever expected – and so you have to sit down and wonder what the hell you're going to do. But as I've been getting into it in the last few months, then you realise that it's just not the case that you spend lots of money – about one in four of the government dollars – but the issues are just so wide ranging. Yesterday, I was in Alice Springs, talking to people about the difficulties that they're having with Aboriginal alcoholism and violence – the kind of problems that it's bringing – and then you're back into discussions on – race back to Cabinet for discussions on migration and what kind of social security benefits people might get, and then you're talking about age pensions, this morning, on another program about some people's concerns. It's just so big. I'll get interested, don't worry."

Hawke's treatment of Richardson in 1990 would ultimately lead to Hawke's own downfall and Richardson's ability to manipulate numbers in favour of Keating, albeit with initial reluctance. Keating became Prime Minister in December 1991, and appointed Richardson to his coveted portfolio of Transport and Communications – earning the nickname, Minister for Channel Nine – due to his close relationship with media magnate, Kerry Packer. Keating was content to have Richardson by his side, organising the Labor Right faction numbers; considering Richardson good in this role, but not necessarily suited to significant office."

I find myself wanting to know more about how our Australian Political movement works.

Sadly, Australian politics works much the same as politics anywhere else.

(Mostly because while the institutions and mechanisms might be unique to Australia, human behaviour - often at its worst when it comes to Politicians, their motivations and their faults - tends to be universal).
 
Read the paragraph after that one and will point out that Caucus appointing MP's may be traditional but not how it works now.



Rudd changed it so all the power is now with the PM

He did it to limit the authority of the unions. When the AWU appointed Julia PM, they got their power back.
 
He did it to limit the authority of the unions. When the AWU appointed Julia PM, they got their power back.

Absolutely. It was more power for Rudd. The AWU wouldn't have liked him not playing the puppet at all - not how things work in the ALP. Like with everything else Rudd misjudged.
 
Julia firms again (to $1.60) amid more speculation of a run by Rudd (now $2.25) later this week.

I love this story (the neverending Gillard / Rudd saga) - it is like the gift that keeps on giving.

And now with a report like this - GG could make Rudd Caretaker PM - it's a situation as close to 1975 as we've come since (when GG Kerr commissioned Caretaker PM Fraser on the condition that he (a) guarantee the passage of govt supply bills in the senate but otherwise pass no legislation, and (b) immediately thereafter call an election).
 
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...uff-gillard-going-nowhere-20130624-2oswx.html

Latest reports saying the claytons challenge is falling over, or will not come.

SO happy!!!! I genuinely fear many uninformed voters will go Rudd and ALP if he comes back giving then a chance. If it stays Gillard then GAME OVER!

On another point I listened to ABC Radio counter point yesterday. A social commentary program with Amanda Vanstone. Any hoe she has and excellant American researcher who said what we all know. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/sincer/4770840

Politicians are so focussed on being liked they fear doing what is right. Essentially all PR and fake Sincerity. And that is the ALP and even the NLP is the later years. Lets us all hope Abbott will go and in do what needs doing. Not try to "protect a lead" for 2017 to use and AFL term.


OFF TOPIC BUt also had another excellent report on the issues of America called "Coming Apart". In short, researcher shows that the emergence of the deadbeat male, which has no shame being unemployed, no care for kids he fathers, and the lack of care in sociaety. ALso the white collar good/ blue collar bad issue. He mentions once a plumber, carpenter, mechanic was a trusted and valued profession, now he says the is a rise of snobbery and unless your have a BA in something and work white-collar you are a failure. Really great suff if you have the time.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/coming-apart23/4770778

Keen to read Rudd caretaker link.

Peter
 
And now with a report like this - GG could make Rudd Caretaker PM - it's a situation as close to 1975 as we've come since (when GG Kerr commissioned Caretaker PM Fraser on the condition that he (a) guarantee the passage of govt supply bills in the senate but otherwise pass no legislation, and (b) immediately thereafter call an election).

Great Find Mark.

I was right on the money with my earlier post. If you can read the above ( it is short) but it could mean a 3rd August Election.

But I don't think Rudd will get leadership because he has pretty much said to ALP " come to me on your knees and beg my leadership" deal only.

Would be a fitting ending to the most controversial government in living memory. Will replace Whitlam as the worst.

Peter.
 
Politicians are so focussed on being liked they fear doing what is right. Essentially all PR and fake Sincerity. And that is the ALP and even the NLP is the later years. Lets us all hope Abbott will go and in do what needs doing. Not try to "protect a lead" for 2017 to use and AFL term.



Peter
Campbell Newman is making all the unpopular moves! Perhaps Tony will do the same.

Liberal propaganda (policy) here http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/realsolutions/LPA Policy Booklet 210x210_pages.pdf

If they do half of this we will be in much better shape!

IMO best policy is the removal of workplace overregulation – This is destroying ALL business at the moment.

Spending on economic infrastructure rather than waste like school halls and pink bats. Highways, railways will create allot of jobs and improve productivity, they also present great opportunities for investors!

I don’t care much for the health and education policies – We spend more than ever on education and results are getting WORSE not better. Perhaps a little discipline rather than money is needed in our schools.
 
Campbell Newman is making all the unpopular moves! Perhaps Tony will do the same.

Liberal propaganda (policy) here http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/realsolutions/LPA Policy Booklet 210x210_pages.pdf

If they do half of this we will be in much better shape!

IMO best policy is the removal of workplace overregulation – This is destroying ALL business at the moment.

Spending on economic infrastructure rather than waste like school halls and pink bats. Highways, railways will create allot of jobs and improve productivity, they also present great opportunities for investors!

I don’t care much for the health and education policies – We spend more than ever on education and results are getting WORSE not better. Perhaps a little discipline rather than money is needed in our schools.

Cannot agree more.

On schools, FYI, I am on a school council and it is very enlightening.

At our school, teachers and principal are great but the rules, bureaucracy, etc is stifling. IMO, GONSKI will make it worst as it rewards poor results and punishes good. Best thing, give the principals the power to really manage the schools and your will get better results in most cases. Not more money, more autonomy.

Peter
 
Back
Top