Make way for President Kevin Rudd and the end of the Labor Party as you know it

[nero_bolt]

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.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/make-way-for-president-kevin-rudd/story-fni0ffxg-1226677322...

[lakeland27]

When it comes to gambling LL, forget party allegiances as a comment like this: "still some good money to be made backing rudd though" can be countered with: still some good money to be lost. of course.. but winning some is looking increasingly likely . i don't gamble however. i don't have a problem with gambling, its just that i notice it's generally well described as a 'mugs game'

[monman12]

PCT, I admit to overstirring some females lately (not that I know the gender of some here, yourself for instance until now) but if you take a moment to consider the context it is within recent political debate and the much overused/run gender perception. Within "debate" here I see one or two who do not consider political reality but rather, in my opinion,  dogged myopic views  which when questioned they  counter with allegations of media mysogony (?), sexism,  bias, etc. Indeed they would most likely fit well into the Women for Gillard group, and then how would they be collectivelly addressed here?

I will find it hard PCT (but will now try) to consider the feelings of a few here considering  that when I recently repeated  a long held view of mine:
".......as in life it is generally the female who gets the short end of the stick....."
I have been saying that for years here, and sadly I think it will continue for years."
It amazingly produced this reply:

"It might suit you that women get the short end of the stick. All that proves is you are a sexist deep down for expecting us to put up and shut up."
A couple of days ago I wrote:
"Unfortunately in life women get the short end of the stick, i.e. women, including  female politicians, pay a larger price than men for their faults and shortcomings."

Deep down sexist?

 FN appears the most perturbed apropos collective gender terminology, but has in the past used the term " the old boys". I bet I would be castigated (or worse) if I used the term "old girls".
So I will stop/reduce  the  perceived "sexist digs"  if they are considered gender insults, and use some esoteric term instead (if I can think of one).

I have called certain people here "nuts" and "weirdoes"  without offence apparently  being taken, and so that I might not be amazingly accused again of:   "It  suiting me when women get the short end of the stick",  how do I now refer to a group of,  say, Gillard supporters that are not male?

nɥºɾ

[izabsmiling]

 Well  I for one would not ever presume that I know more about the media law,ethics and accountabilty than Denis Muller.

this from

Denis Muller 28 June 2013, 3.04pm EST

The Conversation 

Ethical lapses by journalists contributed to Gillard’s demise

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Denis Muller does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

(search and read full article if desired)

Biographical Information 

Denis Muller was born in New Zealand in 1948 and emigrated to Australia in 1969. He was educated at Rosmini College, Auckland, and at the University of Melbourne.

After three years on suburban newspapers in Auckland, he joined The Sydney Morning Herald as a sub-editor in 1969. In 1978 he joined The Times, London, also as a sub-editor, before returning to take up the position of Chief Sub-editor of the Herald in 1980.

He subsequently held the positions of Night Editor, News Editor and Assistant Editor (Investigations) at that newspaper, until joining The Age, Melbourne, as Associate Editor in 1986.

At both newspapers, his responsibilities including representing the papers as an advocate before the Australian Press Council.

From 1984 until he left newspapers in 1993, he worked closely with Irving Saulwick, one of Australia's leading public opinion pollsters, in the management and writing of the Saulwick Poll which was published in The Age as AgePoll and in the Herald as HeraldSurvey. 

In 1990 he was accepted as a mature-age student into the Public Policy program at the University of Melbourne. He completed a Postgraduate Diploma in 1992 and a Master's degree in 1994.

In 1993 he left The Age to take up a position as Group Manager, Communications, at the Board of Studies, Victoria.

In 1995 he established the research consultancy Denis Muller & Associates, and was appointed a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Melbourne.

In 2006 he completed a doctoral thesis on media ethics and accountability, and was appointed a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Public Policy, where he has taught in the Public Policy program since 1997.

He has also taught research methodology at RMIT University, and teaches defamation law to practising journalists through the Communication Law Centre.

In 2007 Dr Muller was appointed an Honorary Fellow in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, with a view to further developing his work in the field of media ethics.

He is married with three children, and lives in Melbourne.

He is Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Victorian Rugby Union and of the Committee of Management of VANISH, an organisation which provides services to people separated from family by adoption, state wardship or donor conception.

[izabsmiling]

MM :allegations of media mysogony (?), sexism,  bias, etc. Indeed they would most likely fit well into the Women for Gillard group, and then how would they be collectivelly addressed here?

Would you put Denis Muller in that group too ?

[monman12]

IS, I think we are on different planets.

nɥºɾ

[lakeland27]

i personally have no doubts about Ms Gillards treatment. it's been said that if she had any, 'she'd survive on merit' and other explainations /justifications that are employed to validate not only gender bias, but a list of bias employed against her. "she's barren' . its just one of an exhaustive list of tactics used against her,, too long. and its quite disgraceful i agree.

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

 FN appears the most perturbed apropos collective gender terminology, but has in the past used the term " the old boys". I bet I would be castigated (or worse) if I used the term "old girls".
So I will stop/reduce  the  perceived "sexist digs"  if they are considered gender insults, and use some esoteric term instead (if I can think of one).

I have called certain people here "nuts" and "weirdoes"  without offence apparently  being taken, and so that I might not be amazingly accused again of:   "It  suiting me when women get the short end of the stick",  how do I now refer to a group of,  say, Gillard supporters that are not male?

nɥºɾ

How about referring to them as women or people?

Yes, I did start calling those who keep making sexist comments members of the old boys club when they refused to stop talking down about women with their constant reference to the sisterhood and matriachy or their nasty digs about women in general.  

It will be a pleasant change if you jump back out of that old boys club. Even more pleasant if others do also.

[monman12]

Thatcher or Merkel she never was, or could have been LL.

She got the job because the ALP patriarchs perceived at the time  that it would be good for them (the Party) , she  lost the job for exactly the same reason.   in between she had the chance to show  "the real Julia", whether she did, or her advisors ruled, we will never know,  as  the PM is now  MP, and the ALP are are already scrapping over the Lalor carcass.

Shakespeare wrote: " the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"  he also continued   " to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them"  Gillard experienced the former but was incapable of the latter.

nɥºɾ

[poddster]

John, Shakespeare also wrote; " Get thee to a nunn'ry" but that would not wash would it?

[freakiness]

We don't live in Shakespean times. Times have changed, for the better.

The last thing we need is another Thatcher.