Rudd resigns as foreign minister

A.A. Alfie said:
But that is exactly what will happen:
If Rudd wins: no-one can work with him and he is not viable in an ongoing sense.
If Gillard wins she cannot win the election: so why stick with her?

Someone else will - MUST lead.
In terms of stability it would be better they do it now rather than later.

The Labor party is being given a great opportunity to make ongoing change and actually provide stability - sadly the factions and faceless men Rudd speaks of will not have it yet, which is a great pity for their party and the Australian people overall.
Click to expand...
They need massive structural changes.
You say Gillard can't win the next election, I agree.
Possibly Shorten later, I agree.
Rudd may, extreme outside chance of winning the election, so why change to someone who is not proven, who probably won't win?
If Rudd wins on Monday and wins next year, keep him as P.M.
If Gillard wins on Monday, will lose next year, replace her with probably Shorten.
The reason the Labor party should go back to Rudd is because he may, I might add a big may win the next election, no other reason.
Labor will have to put up with him or face oblivion.
For stability until the next election stick with Gillard. She loses the next election then go to Shorten.
 
wombatwal said:
They need massive structural changes.
You say Gillard can't win the next election, I agree.
Possibly Shorten later, I agree.
Click to expand...

:cool:

wombatwal said:
Rudd may, extreme outside chance of winning the election, so why change to someone who is not proven, who probably won't win?
Click to expand...

Logical. And it might also mean that this new blood is sacrificed (i.e. permanently tainted) for later.

wombatwal said:
If Rudd wins on Monday and wins next year, keep him as P.M.
Click to expand...

That makes sense except... too many people will not work with him it seems.

wombatwal said:
If Gillard wins on Monday, will lose next year, replace her with probably Shorten.
Click to expand...

Why would any Labor member be ok with losing the next election? Sorry but this makes no sense to me.

wombatwal said:
The reason the Labor party should go back to Rudd is because he may, I might add a big may win the next election, no other reason.
Click to expand...

And the very reason why they must (at worst) change to him.
Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

wombatwal said:
Labor will have to put up with him or face oblivion.
Click to expand...

Yup

wombatwal said:
For stability until the next election stick with Gillard. She loses the next election then go to Shorten.
Click to expand...

In appreciate the sentiment but it makes no sense. They need both stability and an eye for the future right now. And for those reasons Gillard is not their best choice.


Their best option for mine - which I can't see happening - is (say) a Simon Crean to step up and stabilise the team. He will be the leadership sacrifice ahead of the next election until the young bloods are ready - unless of course he (whoever) proves capable and drags them back up the polls.
 
wombatwal said:
They need massive structural changes.
You say Gillard can't win the next election, I agree.
Possibly Shorten later, I agree.
Rudd may, extreme outside chance of winning the election, so why change to someone who is not proven, who probably won't win?
If Rudd wins on Monday and wins next year, keep him as P.M.
If Gillard wins on Monday, will lose next year, replace her with probably Shorten.
The reason the Labor party should go back to Rudd is because he may, I might add a big may win the next election, no other reason.
Labor will have to put up with him or face oblivion.
For stability until the next election stick with Gillard. She loses the next election then go to Shorten.
Click to expand...

Rudd has no hope of winning the next election, he will just not lose as many seats, and after the next election, will be gone anyway. Time to move on from Rudd, he is still a dead end. As to how many less seats he loses, that depends on how much better Labor would be doing if Rudd had not been whiteanting it from within for so long, just when they have had poll boosts from major legislation wins, and the support for the NBN is now clearly a majority. The only reason we have this current mess is not because the whole Labor party is dysfunctional, but because Rudd has taken on a fight he can never win. It's not like when he took the leadership from Beasley, or Keating took it from Hawke, this is a dead end. He will now be the most loathed Labor Party leader, more so than Latham. No wonder Gillard snubbed him at the conference. She knows better than us what he has been doing in secret, as a 'faceless man'.
 
a_unique_person said:
The only reason we have this current mess is not because the whole Labor party is dysfunctional, but because Rudd has taken on a fight he can never win. It's not like when he took the leadership from Beasley, or Keating took it from Hawke, this is a dead end. He will now be the most loathed Labor Party leader, more so than Latham. No wonder Gillard snubbed him at the conference. She knows better than us what he has been doing in secret, as a 'faceless man'.
Click to expand...
Can't entirely agree.
You can't blame the whole fiasco on Rudd.
Gillard cannot sell her party.
She is tainted by the electorate because of the way she came to power.
The Wilkie pockie legislation was also a big blow to her credibility.
 
wombatwal said:
Can't entirely agree.
You can't blame the whole fiasco on Rudd.
Gillard cannot sell her party.
She is tainted by the electorate because of the way she came to power.
The Wilkie pockie legislation was also a big blow to her credibility.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Gillard government's issues are of her/their own making, Rudd is just one part of the underlying problem: If he is a rogue bull she should have killed him off some time ago. It was her lack of judgement and her decision not to do so.

She is reaping what she sowed when she first knifed him 20 months ago. It was compounded by her backflip on the carbon tax and her ability to draw attention to this lack of judgement and questionable honesty has been extraordinary. Some of the latest are breaking a written agreement with Wilkie, Peter Slipper and the involvement of her office in the Australia Day riots (fwoaw).

Her judgement and honesty are continually called into question and she is subsequently never again electable.
 
I was a Rudd supporter until he resigned as Foreign Minister.

Now I have begun to read with closer attention the accounts which many commentators and colleagues, some of whom I'm inclined to respect, have given of Rudd's egocentric and self-defeating behaviour when he was PM. I read the details - as other contributors to this thread will have done - so I don't need to list them here. But it seems pretty clear to me that Rudd has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.This is not the mere egotism or narcissism that we expect of politicians, this is a serious disorder. Rudd says that he has changed his ways - but all the evidence is that NPD cannot be cured.

Kevin Rudd knows he can't possibly be prime minister again, or even leader of the party, he just wants to punish those who mortified him. He is not interested in the good of the country or the good of the party. People (including me until quite recently) are sympathising with him because they feel sorry for him and can't grasp how pointlessly vindicative he is, not having had to deal with him themselves, and because his self-belief is so colossal that we tend to be persuaded that it must be justified.
 
73-29 to Gillard. An absolute hiding. Piss off Kevin. Let's hope this is the last we hear or see of him.
 
ABC's just confirmed the result. So we won't be seeing any more stories of "leadership challenges" in the media. Although certain groups probably won't pay any attention to the result.
 
According to News.com

The Prime Minister received more votes than any leader, and Mr Rudd fewer votes than any challenger - in a leadership ballot.
Click to expand...

Surely thats enough to get him to sit down & shut up.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
I think I'll have a pineapple straight up on Julia please.
Click to expand...


Kid Eager said:
Another vote for Julia retaining the top job. Even if Rudd is supposedly popular, he's such a difficult person to work with and for that nobody wants a repeat of the Rudd Experience in cabinet - and he's offside with the unions.

I'm laying down two pineapples and an avocado. Oh, and half a grape. And a crust with crunchy peanut butter.
Click to expand...


Where's the payout window?
 
Not sure it's such a good idea for Abbott to be insisting on an early election. He's looking like a bit of a dill at the moment.
 
Id expect Rudd to have another tilt at the leadership when the election looms closer. Probably not the numbers he was expecting today (I dont think he ever expected to win it) but I dont think that'll stop him.
 
I heard he was hoping to get 40 votes, and that would give him momentum or something for a second vote.

I have been wondering about something. I suspect it would have been a lot closer if it was a lot closer (!). As in a significant number of people side with the one who looks like they're going to win, so they would seem loyal to who wins and get rewards like possible cabinet positions and such instead of being punished for supporting the other person. So if one of them gets more and looks like they'll win, that person is more likely to get even more votes. So I think that it's closer than it looks when you look at 31 to 71. I am interested in whether this is an accurate idea.
 
Most likely.

I think it would have been much closer had it played out a few more weeks. Gillard calling the spill before Rudd was ready was a great tactic, and it worked. Rudd simply didnt have enough time, and it seems that the caucus are not yet panicking about the potential loss of their seats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom