That's what worries me. All he has to do now is nothing & he'll get in at the next election. Then in 12-18 months, when things are going shit, Albo will do the same thing as Dutton.
You realise Labor has introduced a mechanism to avoid the type of shit that has happened this week.
That's what worries me. All he has to do now is nothing & he'll get in at the next election. Then in 12-18 months, when things are going shit, Albo will do the same thing as Dutton.
You realise Labor has introduced a mechanism to avoid the type of shit that has happened this week.
am Bays wrote:[quote="mighty_tiger_79"]Sco Mo wins
Worse than Turnbull
But better than Dutton and Shorten
That's what worries me. All he has to do now is nothing & he'll get in at the next election. Then in 12-18 months, when things are going shit, Albo will do the same thing as Dutton.
You realise Labor has introduced a mechanism to avoid the type of shit that has happened this week.
Shorten will do a full term.
When did they do that & what is the mechanism[/quote]Rudd introduced it
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Matty Wade is a star and deserves more respect from the forum family!
cracka wrote:That's what worries me. All he has to do now is nothing & he'll get in at the next election. Then in 12-18 months, when things are going shit, Albo will do the same thing as Dutton.
You realise Labor has introduced a mechanism to avoid the type of shit that has happened this week.
Shorten will do a full term.
When did they do that & what is the mechanism
Rudd introduced it
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Of course he did after the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle. So what is the mechanism
cracka wrote:[quote="Q."]You realise Labor has introduced a mechanism to avoid the type of shit that has happened this week.
Shorten will do a full term.
When did they do that & what is the mechanism
Rudd introduced it
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Of course he did after the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle. So what is the mechanism
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.[/quote]Liberals only needed 2 signatures but Mal demanded 43. Not worth the paper it is printed on....
Morrison saying him and fryer didn't knife Turnbull. And saying it with a straight face. The Seinfeld line.......its not a lie if you believe it! These dicks really think we are that dumb?
Total contempt shown for the intelligence of the electorate
Same crowd as last week and they expect us too believe this is a "new generation"
It's a new generation alright. Based on the new energy minister, environment minister and ScoMo's chief of staff we will see a new generation of coal and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Carmichael coal mine get going with some haste.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
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.
To be fair to Labor they had no idea of how Rudd would act as PM. He became increasingly obsessed with his high approval ratings in the opinion polls and refused to make hard decisions that might affect his standing with the public by constantly delaying decisions. The PM office became so chaotic that Rudd also committed the cardinal sin of refusing to engage with his peers and forcing all correspondence from his fellow Labor politicians to go through his chief of staff. Rudd's CoS was often referred to as the second most powerful person in the country at the time despite not being an elected politician.
I see Abbott's trying to spin in the media rounds this morning declaring 'the age of the political assassin' over. I suspect Abbott knows he and his antics will feature prominently in tonight's Four Corners on this debacle.
"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment" – Warren Bennis
Gozu wrote:To be fair to Labor they had no idea of how Rudd would act as PM. He became increasingly obsessed with his high approval ratings in the opinion polls and refused to make hard decisions that might affect his standing with the public by constantly delaying decisions. The PM office became so chaotic that Rudd also committed the cardinal sin of refusing to engage with his peers and forcing all correspondence from his fellow Labor politicians to go through his chief of staff. Rudd's CoS was often referred to as the second most powerful person in the country at the time despite not being an elected politician.
I see Abbott's trying to spin in the media rounds this morning declaring 'the age of the political assassin' over. I suspect Abbott knows he and his antics will feature prominently in tonight's Four Corners on this debacle.
Gozu wrote:To be fair to Labor they had no idea of how Rudd would act as PM. He became increasingly obsessed with his high approval ratings in the opinion polls and refused to make hard decisions that might affect his standing with the public by constantly delaying decisions. The PM office became so chaotic that Rudd also committed the cardinal sin of refusing to engage with his peers and forcing all correspondence from his fellow Labor politicians to go through his chief of staff. Rudd's CoS was often referred to as the second most powerful person in the country at the time despite not being an elected politician.
I see Abbott's trying to spin in the media rounds this morning declaring 'the age of the political assassin' over. I suspect Abbott knows he and his antics will feature prominently in tonight's Four Corners on this debacle.
So did the power go to his head? I struggle with the concept that his work habits were not known beforehand and that his dysfunction as PM couldn't have been anticipated. I recall that documentary on the Gillard/Rudd years said that even prior to being PM he was known for being a severe workaholic and prone to dysfunction.
I accept that these faults became magnified as PM but even then I think it is up to the Government to change their systems, workflows, processes whatever is required to get him functioning as a PM, but leave him in place as he was when the voters elected Labor in. I think barring major inexcusable incidents the party has a responsibility to get their government working under the Leader they decided was the right person for the job.
Hondo wrote:So did the power go to his head? I struggle with the concept that his work habits were not known beforehand and that his dysfunction as PM couldn't have been anticipated. I recall that documentary on the Gillard/Rudd years said that even prior to being PM he was known for being a severe workaholic and prone to dysfunction.
I accept that these faults became magnified as PM but even then I think it is up to the Government to change their systems, workflows, processes whatever is required to get him functioning as a PM, but leave him in place as he was when the voters elected Labor in. I think barring major inexcusable incidents the party has a responsibility to get their government working under the Leader they decided was the right person for the job.
I think the power clearly did go to Rudd's head. Remember he was someone that never had much support within the Labor party he was from the smaller of two factions of the Queensland Right. The larger faction of the QLD Right was headed by Wayne Swan which is why he was a 'package deal' with Rudd as Treasurer. Rudd was always an 'outsider' in the QLD Labor party and I think his success in Labor finally beating John Howard the man who had stood between the ALP and government for so long and along with Rudd's record breaking popularity with the public saw it all go to his head and thus alienate himself from the rest of the party/government.
I remember during the CPRS debacle Rudd refused to speak to Greens leader Bob Brown who had been trying to set up a meeting with Rudd for something like 6-9 months. No matter what colour your stripes you can't have someone like that as PM.
"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment" – Warren Bennis
