cracka wrote:jo172 wrote:Can only have a spill after losing a general election unless over 50% of the caucus and 50% of the party membership endorses the spill.
Probably makes the leader dangerously bullet proof and is a step too far in the other direction.
So not a 100% guarantee that it could never happen.
I think IF the Liberals are roundly punished for this in the next election that alone may be enough of a deterrent from Labor doing it yet again to Shorten.
We do have to remember Turnbull himself pulled this stunt twice. Once in opposition to Brendan Nelson and then to Abbott as the PM.
One key problem has been that for Gillard and then Turnbull the PM they replaced stayed in Parliament unable to let go of the hurt. And I guess why wouldn't you be hurt from having your PM'ship taken from you. So to fix that the rule would have to be the ditched PM actually walks away from Parliament but is that fair on either them or the voters in their electorate?
The best fix is as we would all agree just don't do it in the first place. Part of this is being smart enough to pick a leader who is popular (obviously) but who also has the support of their party AND is actually enough of a functional leader to both be the election winning populist AND a competent PM in terms of the day to day work. History says that Rudd despite being the popular leader who got Labor back into power could not then function as the PM due to work habits etc. Well surely that can be worked out before you appoint him as leader.
In between signatures .....