Tell you what , I wish you were right evan , he's far more of a worry than Gillard - anyone . I couldn't see how though that's the problem , with the way he is poling.I'll give him this much , he does make one relentless apposition leader , keeps it simple which I know he can't help anyway but just goes on , and on , and on .
Hi ho, Hi ho, It's back to Rudd we go...
- Thread starter josko
- Start date
Tell you what , I wish you were right evan , he's far more of a worry than Gillard - anyone . I couldn't see how though that's the problem , with the way he is poling.I'll give him this much , he does make one relentless apposition leader , keeps it simple which I know he can't help anyway but just goes on , and on , and on .
Why this fixation with the leaders? Labor was hopeless even BEFORE they had the first female Prime Minister who now has the albatross called "Greens" around her neck. They will remain so regardless of who they put up as frontman/woman.
Liberals are the only viable alternative until we see what sort of party fills the void left by a vanishing labor party.* They will be quite predictable regardless of their leader. Get over it.
* I don't see Labor surviving in it's current form.
Liberals are the only viable alternative until we see what sort of party fills the void left by a vanishing labor party.* They will be quite predictable regardless of their leader. Get over it.
* I don't see Labor surviving in it's current form.
It isn't the liberals per se. It is a coalition of an unrepresentative liberal party and a right wing nationals party. (right wing except when they are siding with the greens to block access of miners to farmers land) 
This so called liberal party/coalition would be irrelevant in a numbers sense if it wasnt for a bunch of redneck QLD national seats propping the liberals up.
But I do agree as labor moves away from the union influence it will have to reinvent itself in some form. This could either be a blessing or a major worry for the so called liberal party. Aka: the coalition.
This so called liberal party/coalition would be irrelevant in a numbers sense if it wasnt for a bunch of redneck QLD national seats propping the liberals up.
But I do agree as labor moves away from the union influence it will have to reinvent itself in some form. This could either be a blessing or a major worry for the so called liberal party. Aka: the coalition.
Hi Evan,
What are your thoughts on the Unions if you don't mind? Are you glad Labor is moving away from them? Especially with the HSU scandal. They certainly don't represent the majority anymore and membership numbers are dwindling compared to decades ago.
Can Labor literally afford to let them go?
Personally, I see it as an inconvenience to the Liberals.
Regards JO
What are your thoughts on the Unions if you don't mind? Are you glad Labor is moving away from them? Especially with the HSU scandal. They certainly don't represent the majority anymore and membership numbers are dwindling compared to decades ago.
Can Labor literally afford to let them go?
Personally, I see it as an inconvenience to the Liberals.
Regards JO
Hi Jo
I'm not sure where they'll go but they need to move toward the centre and away from old fashioned union influence. The unions will not let go easily of course, they still hold enormous influence in the party. (witness the backstabbing of Rudd and installing of gillard).
I think - but could be wrong - the labor party was formed by the unions to defend and represent the rights of workers. A worthy cause, then and now.
I could defend the Craig Thompson affair but the latest stuff is not good. It looks like systematic HSU union funds abuse and I can't defend that. That has nothing to do with political leanings, it's just wrong.
Getting back to the labor party, they might use labor in UK as a model after Thatcher all but destroyed the unions. They moved to the centre and gained a lot of voters, I think they were called 'new labor'.
I hope they dont go to the extreme of destroying unions and workers rights (I think that has gone a long way to the social dislocation in the UK)
I'd say a major influence to the great lifestyle we have in this country is the left wing, egalitarian, fair go for all attitude Of the labor parties and electorate.
I'm not sure where they'll go but they need to move toward the centre and away from old fashioned union influence. The unions will not let go easily of course, they still hold enormous influence in the party. (witness the backstabbing of Rudd and installing of gillard).
I think - but could be wrong - the labor party was formed by the unions to defend and represent the rights of workers. A worthy cause, then and now.
I could defend the Craig Thompson affair but the latest stuff is not good. It looks like systematic HSU union funds abuse and I can't defend that. That has nothing to do with political leanings, it's just wrong.
Getting back to the labor party, they might use labor in UK as a model after Thatcher all but destroyed the unions. They moved to the centre and gained a lot of voters, I think they were called 'new labor'.
I hope they dont go to the extreme of destroying unions and workers rights (I think that has gone a long way to the social dislocation in the UK)
I'd say a major influence to the great lifestyle we have in this country is the left wing, egalitarian, fair go for all attitude Of the labor parties and electorate.
It would be the same if the nationals were there or not. If the national party did not exist, all national voters would vote liberal anyway and the national seats would be liberal. So no difference at all.
See ya's.
Yeah, it's a fact mate. I have a time machine and went into the future and saw it all happen.
Gee's you can say some weird stuff on here at times.
See ya's.
The influence and specifically the so-called negative perception of unions on the ALP is overplayed.
When the ALP is able to doing well, the factions/union influence is actually a very stable influence and positive. The reverse however is true. When things start to unravel, then competing interests, egos, personal power plays come into play.
But that is the same for any political party even the Libs. Does anyone remember the 80's wet v dry faction (Peacock v Howard) split that lasted throughout the whole decade. Its just the ALP have the unions/factions embedded in their political process
When the ALP is able to doing well, the factions/union influence is actually a very stable influence and positive. The reverse however is true. When things start to unravel, then competing interests, egos, personal power plays come into play.
But that is the same for any political party even the Libs. Does anyone remember the 80's wet v dry faction (Peacock v Howard) split that lasted throughout the whole decade. Its just the ALP have the unions/factions embedded in their political process
I'm going to suggest that there is not actually that much support for Abbott. There is just a backlash against Gillard.
Get rid of Gillard for someone else and retain Abbott, there would be a swing to labor.
I shudder to think that there is that much support for the pugalistic mad monk.
Hockey? No issue, Turnball? No issue. But Abbott?
Get rid of Gillard for someone else and retain Abbott, there would be a swing to labor.
I shudder to think that there is that much support for the pugalistic mad monk.
Hockey? No issue, Turnball? No issue. But Abbott?
Ideo,
Unfortunately, I'll agree with you on this.
That is why I say: If Gillard is to go before Christmas and well before the next election, it will be Rudd that replaces her.
Turnball = Rudd. (Although I think he is more astute) He is not a team player and won't get the party support for the long term.
I love Hockey's enthusiasm...he's a calmer Barnaby Joyce but I am not sure he has the necessary leadership skills that Abbott has.
I understand your reference to "monk" but why is it necessary? What has religion got to do with it? If it were in the equation, the country would be up in arms about Gillard's Atheism. Further more, I would be backing her, if my faith had anything to do with it.
Regards JO
You said it like it was cast in concrete fact. Its not at all, you're just guessing.
If youre referring to the greens, they make up a minuscule portion of the numbers for Labor compared with the Nationals for Liberals, who rely heavily on them. And as i said, especially QLD national seats.
I think the Liberal party (on its own) must be the most unrepresentative of any major political party in the western world. Without the Nationals they would be irrelevant.
Now stop playing that banjo and get with it Fish!!
I think the Liberal party (on its own) must be the most unrepresentative of any major political party in the western world. Without the Nationals they would be irrelevant.
Now stop playing that banjo and get with it Fish!!
Where would labor be without it's rag-tag collection of bogan anarchists?
Bloody rednecks indeed!
....
...........Have you had a look at your NSW state govt ??
It has 93 seats, and therefore 47 seats are needed to form government. The Liberal Party by themselves currently hold 51 seats. A very clear majority on their own. The other 18 seats their colleagues the Nationals hold just make their coalition an overwhelming, thumping majority. Labor are toast with just 20 seats.
....
Have you had a look at your NSW state govt ??
It has 93 seats, and therefore 47 seats are needed to form government. The Liberal Party by themselves currently hold 51 seats. A very clear majority on their own. The other 18 seats their colleagues the Nationals hold just make their coalition an overwhelming, thumping majority. Labor are toast with just 20 seats.
SO looking forward to the next election.
Regards JO
I was talking federally. But you knew that.
Re NSW, that's the result of years of incompetence and mismanagement etc....i dont have room for all the adjectives to describe a useless NSW Labor.
Re NSW, that's the result of years of incompetence and mismanagement etc....i dont have room for all the adjectives to describe a useless NSW Labor.
....
Have you had a look at your NSW state govt ??
It has 93 seats, and therefore 47 seats are needed to form government. The Liberal Party by themselves currently hold 51 seats. A very clear majority on their own. The other 18 seats their colleagues the Nationals hold just make their coalition an overwhelming, thumping majority. Labor are toast with just 20 seats.
So did you vote liberal then? If you didn't then you voted for your own "benefit", not the state's.
Similar threads
