I sure hope that all the true labor voters are going to like the new RUDD party and if KDUDD gets his way you will not know the Labor party any more.
It will be the RUDD party.
I do like the true labor party and what it used to stand for but sadly that all went with Gillard and RUDD is going to trash what is left
-------------------------------------
NO, KEVIN Rudd is not saving Labor. He's smashing what's left and building a new Rudd Party.
That is the key to the brilliant return of President Rudd. You don't like the Opposition? Vote for Rudd.
Oh, you don't like Labor? Vote for Rudd.
And you do like Rudd don't you? See the picture he tweeted yesterday of the cut he got shaving? What a guy! Bleeding for the voters!
And with that mob's backing, Rudd has such control of the Party Formerly Known As Labor that its policies are only what he says they are.
No one in Labor knows whether Rudd plans to keep the deficit to $18 billion or blow it even bigger. No one knows if he'll scrap the carbon tax or slash the public service. Will he spend or save? How will he stop the boats?
It is all for Rudd to decide, and so far he's decided virtually nothing.
But what Labor MPs do know is that they can never remove him for as long as he wins elections. Under new party rules Rudd proposed this week, he will in effect be President for life, with only voters able to throw him out.
Rudd's rules ban Labor MPs from removing any Labor prime minister, except in the almost unimaginable circumstance of 75 per cent of them signing a petition charging him (or her) with bringing the party into disrepute - and even then a ballot of party members could outvote them. Only if a leader loses an election can they be challenged - and then only once.
The changes make Rudd not a Prime Minister but President, bigger than his party. But Labor MPs should ask not just whether Rudd - sacked three years ago for being a "control freak" and "dysfunctional" - can be trusted with such power but also whether Labor can afford to lose the freedom to renew itself in office.
Three of the past four Labor prime ministers - Bob Hawke, Rudd and Julia Gillard - lost their jobs at the hands of a challenger.
At least two of those changes worked. Paul Keating replaced an unfocused Bob Hawke to lead Labor to a famous win. In replacing Gillard, Rudd turned certain rout into possible victory.
Even Rudd's dumping in 2010 worked well enough, with Gillard winning an election Labor had feared was lost. Had Rudd not sabotaged the campaign, Gillard would have won comfortably. But under Rudd's rules, every one of those leadership changes would be banned and today Gillard would be leading Labor to annihilation.
A healthy party could never agree to what Rudd proposes - putting itself in the hands of a man it could never remove while he keeps winning. What if he went mad as Doc Evatt? What if he decided to go Green?
But Labor is crippled. It is now far less popular than Rudd, who has built his return on campaigning as much against his party as the Opposition. In his first ad, released last weekend, he declares: "I believe all Australians are sick and tired of negative politics. I believe people want all of us to raise the standards."
Rudd isn't just attacking Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, but disowning Labor under Gillard - the class war talk, the gender war, the yelling. This week he also attacked the power of Labor's "factional few" and criticised how Gillard replaced Senator Trish Crossin with her "captain's pick" of Nova Peris.
Rudd is running against Labor for the votes of people who left it and against the Opposition for the votes of the rest. So far it's working, with Newspoll having Labor level with the Coalition.
So Rudd will present his proposed power grab as almost a fait accompli at a special caucus meeting on July 22. Labor MPs know if they snub him, they will sign the party's death warrant.
Already faction leaders are swallowing their pride and doubts. Paul Howes, the Australian Workers Union secretary who helped tear down Rudd in 2010, said: "The proposals that Kevin Rudd has put up are smart."
True, unions of the Right will tomorrow discuss whether Rudd is indeed taking too much power, but most Labor MPs will feel forced to concede it to him.
Last year Workplace Minister Bill Shorten, asked if he agreed with PM Gillard, sarcastically replied: "I haven't seen what she said but let me say I support what it is that she said."
Now every other minister must give that answer, too: they haven't yet seen Rudd's policies, but they support whatever he says.
John, I'm a bloke, and may I say that the constant references to "Sisterhood" and such-like do you no credit.
I used to enjoy your sometimes incisive, often graph-laden, analyses of situations and posts, and you appeared then to not have a foot in any particular camp, be it gender-based or political. I have been on the receiving end of a gentle barb or two from you, mostly deserved, but always with an empirical/factual focus.
Now they seem to be littered with snide and irrelevant comments about people based on their gender, not their message.
I look forward to reading posts again from the "Old John".
i personally dont care waht sex my politions are as long as they are ellected on ability & have a clear set of veiws regardless of the fact that i agree or disagree with them.
the biggest tragity to take place so far in all of this is the diindorsment of a long serving labour polition ( who happens to be a woman) who had served her electrate for many years was a member of her party & had a set values & politics that she believed, only to be replaced by a non memeber who has admittedshe has no policies and no cleir veiws or directions on how she would fill the roll.and is only there becuase she was female aboriginal and fitted into a demigraphic that the prime minister wanted to promote.
choices should always be made around who best fits the job not who fills a quoter.
