Rudd resigns as foreign minister

jenspen said:
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.
Click to expand...

If he really wanted to punish Julia Gillard and her supporters he would resign from Parliament and encourage several of his supporters who are in marginal electorates to do the same. Two of the bi-elections are won by the Liberals and the government no longer have a majority.
 
Mark Arbib resigns from the Senate. He's a staunch Gillard supporter, and claims that it's for family reasons. But I think he's taking the fall for those who originally toppled Rudd for the sake of unity.
 
Abbott, naturally, makes a dick of himself in Question Time, asking questions about Gillard not having the support of a third of caucus. This goose won Liberal Party leadership by one vote! Hilarious.
 
Alan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Assuming the voting is public (for the life of me I can't remember, poor form!) then I think there could definitely be a factor of that in play. That said, we've been told he didn't have the numbers for quite a while now, so this could also just be a true reflection. Good question though.
 
lionking said:
Abbott, naturally, makes a dick of himself in Question Time, asking questions about Gillard not having the support of a third of caucus. This goose won Liberal Party leadership by one vote! Hilarious.
Click to expand...

"Truly pathetic"

2PP from the respected Essential is 56:44.

They backed the wrong horse - she will lead them over the cliff. He might be hard to work with, but at least they might have had work. I honestly don't get it.

And before you all go backstabbing Rudd again, please tell me where you thought him awful before he was knifed. Baaaa.

The faceless men win again.

http://essentialvision.com.au/essential-research

Never have we had so much fun. :)
 
A.A. Alfie said:
"Truly pathetic"

2PP from the respected Essential is 56:44.

They backed the wrong horse - she will lead them over the cliff. He might be hard to work with, but at least they might have had work. I honestly don't get it.

And before you all go backstabbing Rudd again, please tell me where you thought him awful before he was knifed. Baaaa.

The faceless men win again.

http://essentialvision.com.au/essential-research

Never have we had so much fun. :)
Click to expand...

I have never had any time for Rudd, and didn't even vote Labor in 2007. That you don't get things is not terribly surprising.
 
I didn't ask you to prove who you voted for, I asked you to prove you had no time for Rudd (you really should pay more attention).

So..... evidence please.
 
Sceptic-PK said:
Alan said:
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.
Click to expand...


Assuming the voting is public (for the life of me I can't remember, poor form!) then I think there could definitely be a factor of that in play. That said, we've been told he didn't have the numbers for quite a while now, so this could also just be a true reflection. Good question though.
Click to expand...


It was a secret ballot.
 
You think?

I reckon LK is being a bit loose and free with the truth here. Like many of Rudd's Labor colleagues they loved him in power, were kind when he was dismissed and let him have it when it hit the fan last week.

The hypocrisy is extraordinary.

There are pages and pages of inconsistent testimonies on Rudd that we have seen in the papers etc in the past few days. LK is doing the same and playing wise in hindsight - a very easy game to play. So if he did think so ill of Rudd, no doubt he expressed these feelings somewhere on this forum in the past.It's his claim and he can prove it. If not, his claim is unsupportable and I am calling it BS.

I have accused some of being sheep on this issue and this seems one more example.

If it is ridiculous for me to call my personal troll then so be it. I see it differently and call on LK to support his claim. I betting he can't.
 
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...

This whole destablisation is Rudds work. There have been a continual stream of leaks that have damaged his own party and government. The press have had a field day, when all along, everyone knew, except Rudd, he didn't have a snow balls chance of winning. So what did he gain? What could he ever hope to gain?

One of the big weaknesses with the Liberals under Howard was that when it was time for him to go, no one had the guts to make him go. His wife like being in Kiribilli House, so he had to stay on as PM.
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
That's good. I think I heard people talking about trying to make it a secret ballot on the news, but I didn't know what the result was.
Click to expand...


Julia's camp did try and make it a 'show of hands' arrangement and there's no doubt at all that their aim was to intimidate a few fence-sitters. If it hadn't been a secret ballot then Kevvy's defeat would have been far more comprehensive than it was.

I think I'm glad it ended up being secret or we never would have heard the end of it from the right whingers.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
You think?

I reckon LK is being a bit loose and free with the truth here. Like many of Rudd's Labor colleagues they loved him in power, were kind when he was dismissed and let him have it when it hit the fan last week.
Click to expand...

Now this is a claim. A claim that you have said I'm lying about. Where have I been ever other than scathing about Rudd? Come on, you are so convinced I'm lying, you must be able to find one example. Put up or shut up.

Oh, and a stundie nomination is well justified. Well done.
 
lionking said:
Now this is a claim. A claim that you have said I'm lying about. Where have I been ever other than scathing about Rudd? Come on, you are so convinced I'm lying, you must be able to find one example. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Meh
It is you who made the claims about always hating Rudd and you can't show that you actually did. I am "reckoning", you are making statements of fact (i.e. "claiming"). The ball is all yours.
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
Meh
It is you who made the claims about always hating Rudd and you can't show that you actually did. I am "reckoning", you are making statements of fact (i.e. "claiming"). The ball is all yours.
Click to expand...

huh?

You dont get it. He has no way of confirm to you that he's never thought much of Rudd. It's a thought. One must take him at his word. Perhaps he could dig up old posts of him saying "RUDDY IS TEH CRAP!!!" to support his position, but thinking about it and posting about it are 2 different things, and posting is obviously not a prerequisite of thinking about it.

Unless, of course, you could dig up an old post of him saying "RUDDY IS TEH BEST!!!". Then that would be evidence he is lying.

I must ask: you really dont get this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom