SA Footy

Magpiespower wrote:

mick wrote:I'm no fan of Gillard, but that was disgusting

Seems to be the one thing everybody agrees on!

Just wish she told him to "f@%koff" live on-air.

High office be damned...

I agree - that would have been a beauty
Even the Libs would have applauded her on that one

dont like the woman but that bloke needs a kick in the arse. disgusting.
did you see gillards face....its like am i having a stroke....did i hear what he said right...

Where Gillard went wrong is that I feel she let him go on with it when in fact she would likely have had the full support of Australia and likely some free positive publicity if she had of in fact told him to stick his interview up his ar$e and walked out.

Also very surprised that this would happen on the Left wing Fairfax Media???

Sojourner wrote:Where Gillard went wrong is that I feel she let him go on with it when in fact she would likely have had the full support of Australia and likely some free positive publicity if she had of in fact told him to stick his interview up his ar$e and walked out.

Also very surprised that this would happen on the Left wing Fairfax Media???

Fairfax left-wing???

Sattler just got sacked apparently

that was just terrible journalism

Sojourner wrote:Where Gillard went wrong is that I feel she let him go on with it when in fact she would likely have had the full support of Australia and likely some free positive publicity if she had of in fact told him to stick his interview up his ar$e and walked out.

Also very surprised that this would happen on the Left wing Fairfax Media???

Actually, I thought she handled it well, civil but firm, in a situation where the interviewer was being quite inappropriate.
I think he deserved the sack.

She should have pulled the "You know I could have 2 big blokes in dark suits and sunglasses come in here and rip your fu**ing head off with a flick of my fingers, dont you dickhead?"

She should have actually gotten them to do it!

She handled it well, he got what he deserved. I think it's finally coming to a point that the treatment of our leaders is being noticed more and there's a backlash. Been too long the media and public have been able to do whatever they please, no matter how disgusting. Fingers crossed people aren't taking a stand purely because our leader right now happens to be a woman and we start to demand at least a modicum of respect for those who put their hand up for high office.

Via Larry Pickering,

RUDD DOES HAVE THE NUMBERS... but they’re no good to him

I recall writing two years ago (regarding Gillard’s tenure in Office) that I will pour a glass of good red, roll a smoke and sit back and watch the mayhem, because Gillard will be impossible to get rid of.

Well, I’ve rolled another smoke, topped up my red and she is still here.

My fingers are sore typing that Rudd will never again lead the Labor Party but hyperventilating media still shout that he can return to save the Party.

I’m no soothsayer but it’s pretty simple why a Rudd return is out of the question. As I said two weeks ago, if any move was to be made against Gillard, it will be in the week following this one to avoid an Opposition attack... and it won’t be Rudd.

Anyone who dares tap Gillard on the shoulder will cop a savage shafting from her favourite implement, but 30 per cent of the Caucus could conceivably force a spill. (That’s only if 30 per cent of them have been ingesting bucket loads of steroids.)

Even if Rudd could command 95 per cent of Caucus votes (which he can’t) it would still be insufficient for him to claim the throne simply because of those Party members who would walk.

If there were only five who would refuse to serve under Rudd (and there are more) it would invite Abbott to immediately move a motion of no confidence.

Okay, would a dumped and vexatious Gillard vote for Rudd? Would Swan, Roxon, Garrett or Macklin? Of course not. They are already prepared to go down in a Gillard ship, as are many others.

They have already chosen suicide in preference to Rudd. Why would they vote for him as PM in a motion of no confidence?

Now, what about the Independents? Would they now have their ‘stable government’? They claim all bets are off if Gillard is deposed. Their signed deals were with Gillard herself.

Rudd would never be able to command a majority on the floor of the House, the motion would succeed and off to see the GG goes Abbott.

Ms Bryce reluctantly enthrones Abbott as PM, writs are issued and an election date is named five weeks hence, after which, if the Coalition does not control the Senate, we can look forward to another double dissolution election in six months’ time.

Although Rudd may have a majority of Caucus votes, it’s of no bloody use to him! The political pundits simply don’t see this!

Of those who hold marginal seats and would vote for Rudd in a spill, few want to retain him, but they DO want to retain their seats and that’s why Shorten is seriously considering his position.

Shorten is a factional powerbroker and should be able to secure the numbers in the House if he can beguile the Abbott-hating Independents and thereby stymie a no confidence motion.

But... and it’s a big but! All this has to happen within six sitting days. It’s unlikely... neither Gillard nor Rudd will be there for the final Caucus meeting and I can’t see Gillard agreeing to reconvene Parliament to sort it out.

Anything can still happen! Rudd will not be there to nominate. Gillard could be deposed in her absence? It’s highly unlikely but there is no precedent for this monolithic mess.

One thing is certain, Gillard is happy to lead the Party she says she loves into oblivion and it could well be the finish of the Labor Party as it has been known for 124 years. What a wonderful legacy for Gillard.

A dead woman walking holds no empathy for the plight of fickle comrades.

I think I’ll roll another smoke and top that merlot up.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Larry-Pi ... 38?fref=ts

I'm not sure Pickering is all there these days....but...he nailed it

GIllard should GO

but RUDD shouldnt contest, who wants to be the leader of possibly the biggest landslide loss

Even Fairfax has turned against Gillard.

Henny Penny, the sky IS falling!

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/for-the-sake-of-the-nation-ms-gillard-should-stand-aside-20130621-2oo6e.html

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:GIllard should GO

but RUDD shouldnt contest, who wants to be the leader of possibly the biggest landslide loss

That's exactly why he isn't going to contest. He is positioning himself to take over in the aftermath.

overloaded wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:GIllard should GO

but RUDD shouldnt contest, who wants to be the leader of possibly the biggest landslide loss

That's exactly why he isn't going to contest. He is positioning himself to take over in the aftermath.

Bill Shorten will be the Opposition Leader

overloaded wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:GIllard should GO

but RUDD shouldnt contest, who wants to be the leader of possibly the biggest landslide loss

That's exactly why he isn't going to contest. He is positioning himself to take over in the aftermath.

The person who has become the opposition leader directly after an election loss hasn't gone on to be the Prime Minister since the 1920's.

I don't think there will be anyone in the Labor party rushing to be the first opposition leader after September 14th.

according to the news reports there is a ballot going around about rudd supporters signing a petition for an over throw of Julia at the moment. I would think that timing is wrong by rudd knowing the labour party is due for a landslide defeat, I would still wait

Once again it's on!

7pm tonight.

GO KEV!!!

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/labor-leadership-live-julia-gillard-or-kevin-rudd-who-will-lead-party/story-fnho52ip-1226669921693

What a joke!!!!

Rudd on sky now saying he will contest