[pugsville]

"Adam Giles has become the first indigenous Australian to lead a state or territory, after Terry Mills became the first chief minister, premier or prime minister to be removed in a party room coup while out of the country."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z2NZd15Vr2


Now will anyone of the Liberal side of politics condemn this as a true stab in the back or is Gillard just judged by totally different standards?

[Swagman]

There is A big difference.

Gillard lied about wanting Rudd's job.

"There's more chance of me becoming the full forward for the Dogs than there is any change in the Labor Party,”

Julia Gillard 17 May 2010

[GandalfTheGrey]

when did she say that swag? She might have genuinely believed it at the time. Just like she believed at the time that there would be no carbon tax at the time she said it.

[colliric]

when did she say that swag? She might have genuinely believed it at the time. Just like she believed at the time that there would be no carbon tax at the time she said it.

We're not going to have that silly arguement again are we?

It doesn't matter weather or not she "genuinely believed it at the time", If she did then she TURNED IT INTO A LIE with her subsiquent actions....

Also Swagman put the date she said it underneath it...

[pugsville]

and ? Your comment of the Subject at hand?

Whats your view knife job or not.

[colliric]

and ? Your comment of the Subject at hand?

Whats your view knife job or not.

I think not, if only because he probably knew it was coming given the previous two attempts. Although he was probably surprised by the timing.

I think that the term "Knife Job" should apply to a totally unexpected event given it alludes, historically, to Brutus stabbing Caesar in the back and the conspiracy that led to that event. Rudd clearly didn't expect to lose the leadership or even be challenged(given he was a first-termer and this is a rare event for first termers).

[pugsville]

Both liberal leaders replaced were first termers. The argument clearly is refuted by the facts in that it in no way different from the Rudd case. Thats just plain sloppy. If you want some transparent excuse to justifiy the double standard at least put up something that is just outright dis proven by the facts.

really thats the best excuse for not applyin the same standards. really You just thought Ted was into his second term? It slipped you mind? Really ?

[colliric]

Both liberal leaders replaced were first termers. The argument clearly is refuted by the facts in that it in no way different from the Rudd case. Thats just plain sloppy. If you want some transparent excuse to justifiy the double standard at least put up something that is just outright dis proven by the facts.

really thats the best excuse for not applyin the same standards. really You just thought Ted was into his second term? It slipped you mind? Really ?

?

How the heck did you draw that conclusion?

"rare" doesn't mean "it's the only time it's happened"....

Dumb.

Sometimes I wish you put more scrutiny into what you post as response.

"If you want some transparent excuse to justifiy the double standard at least put up something that is just outright dis proven by the facts."

In otherword I should argue against myself by providing examples that are against what I'm arguing? That's terrible grammar. I think you meant to say "that isn't disproved by the facts" but it came out wrong?

And they're both different from Rudd's case... In this case there had been not one, but two leadership challenges PRIOR to this, the Party room obviously wasn't happy with him. Im not saying they should have waited till he got back, but it could have been launched at a better time when he was there to defend himself better.

In Ted's case he knew Geoff Shaw was a bastard likely to pull a stunt at the earliest possible timing, we all did. Even Daniel Andrews noted it was different(so why argue it was simular at all? As Dan said "Geoff Shaw fired Ted Ballieu!")

RUDD DID NOT RECIEVE ANY SIGN THINGS WERE WRONG UNTIL THE NIGHT IT OCCURRED.

[GandalfTheGrey]

RUDD DID NOT RECIEVE ANY SIGN THINGS WERE WRONG UNTIL THE NIGHT IT OCCURRED.

Of course there were signs - namely opinion polls.

Dissent within the caucus during Rudd's reign is now famous. There were rumblings over leadership going on everywhere. I simply cannot fathom the idea that in this environment Rudd was never approached by any of his colleagues or power brokers to smarten up his act. I'd have to read Party Thieves again - but I'm almost sure that Rudd was warned repeatedly leading up to the coup.

[colliric]

Of course there were signs - namely opinion polls.

Dissent within the caucus during Rudd's reign is now famous. There were rumblings over leadership going on everywhere. I simply cannot fathom the idea that in this environment Rudd was never approached by any of his colleagues or power brokers to smarten up his act. I'd have to read Party Thieves again - but I'm almost sure that Rudd was warned repeatedly leading up to the coup.

Try explaining that to the public... Perhaps he was, but my point is that to the public this didn't appear to be the case at all. The opinion polls showed he was in a slump, but as he was a first termer that didn't truly send a public bad signal, after all changing leadership in the first term had until that point, been a "no-no". It's always a bad idea, and always will be. The Public would rather vote him out themselves if he stuffs up in the first term. In the second or third term maybe(to renew the party image and not seem old hat) but never the first.

Labor party should have known better than to do that. People still haven't forgotten the dismissal, but it appears the Labor party eventually did. After all they decided to play the part of the Governor General themselves, complete with the bad reputation that followed him around like a bad smell for years.

[pugsville]

Everything your saying still applies in the liberal cases but you have yet to condemn them the way you do Gillard. How are you not just a hypocrite? If they are different then remove the first term stuff from your post and you are not left with much, if then was different because it was the third challenge then the it dont apply first challenge.

[colliric]

Everything your saying still applies in the liberal cases but you have yet to condemn them the way you do Gillard. How are you not just a hypocrite? If they are different then remove the first term stuff from your post and you are not left with much, if then was different because it was the third challenge then the it dont apply first challenge.

Once again your post doesn't make sense at all.

[pugsville]

You condemn Gillard but refuse to condemn the libs, claiming it's different, you claim "first term" makes the difference, I point out that the Libs were both first term, then you reply with a post that mainly goes on about first term.

Gillard and the Libs "knifes" we all first term. It's NOT a difference but a similarly. You have failed to explain the difference, but go on about first term which you really should have been well aware that Ted was first term. You argument about first term is illogical. It would only make sense if the libs were NOT first term and Rudd was. Seeing they were ALL first term your claim that first term makes all the difference is quite clearly nothing but rubbish.

SO were back to you holding Gillard to a totally different standard than Liberal leaders. Quite simple really. Your initial response about first term was just laughable, as it was the same in all cases and cannot logically explain why you would condemn one but not the others.

[colliric]

You seem to have totally ignored the fact that I BELIEVE RUDD WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ATTACK ON HIM, and then when he was made aware, was confident that SENSE WOULD PREVAIL AND A FIRST TERMER WOULDN'T BE REMOVED.

Now do you finally understand?

I believe the other two WERE AWARE OF THE MOVES AGAINST THEM FROM THE START.

Heck I actually agree a bit with Gandalf's post... Rudd may have privately not read the signs his party was full of rash save their own skins people that ignored the whole "First termers don't get kicked out" idea. He probably had too much fainth in them and too much confidence in himself.

[Swagman]

Actually it wasn't Gillard's fault Rudd was assassinated, afterall she was just a puppet on the string of the faceless men. Give her the benefit of the doubt that she had no idea as she still has no idea....

[colliric]

Actually it wasn't Gillard's fault Rudd was assassinated, afterall she was just a puppet on the string of the faceless men. Give her the benefit of the doubt that she had no idea as she still has no idea....

I mostly blame Bill Shorten and Arbib.

Oh and Bob Carr as well... The whole Labor Party NSW culture that was starting to get a vice-like grip on the Federal party. Seriously the state vs state feuding going on in the Federal party is sickening me. Carr(NSW), Rudd(Qld) and Gillard(VIC) gives me the shits, not to mention Wong(SA).

[Swagman]

Rudd wouldn't bow to the 'Polit' bureau

[pugsville]

I would have thought swagman quote of Gillard being asked by the Media about the leadership would mean the Media at least had some sort of sniff, and therefore surely it's at least arguable the Rudd should have known. To say that it is condemnable just Rudd was surprised seems a strange way of saying what or isnt "fair enough". None of three disposing of leaders seem top be driven by real policy differences, all were a general lack of faith in the leaders ability to win elections in the party room. SO GIlliard was ambitious and used this lack of support to realises her ambitions, it's no different for 90% of political leaders in this country, leadership changes are ambition, perceived electoral support, personalities, rather than policy generally. Weather of not the leader is first, term in government or opposition, sees it coming or not I just dont see any real difference. Most leaders want to lead, they want to run the country give the politicians ns the choice between running the country or being right on an issue but in opposition they will take running the country. Political parties and Politicos are sort of "genetically selected" by the electoral process. Winning elections means they stay around longer, become more prevalent as a type compared to those that don't. More and more it has about winning rather than policy, and the party rooms dont want right they want a winner, and th party rooms have all become fairly fickle, so ambitious leader aspirants take advantage of it. Looking at the long history of politics, political leadership aspirants havent really changed they want the top job, thats constant, it's the party rooms that have changed, dogma/policy (depending were you stand) is less important the leader maintains his political following by delivery political office, winning elections to distribute the prizes of victory. The rise of the political hack/backroom advisor to political candidate shows this patronage/advancement system has gone very deep into the political parties.

Now where was I ? I see no difference between Gillard's behaviour and aspiring democratic political leaders throughout history, this period in Australia politics the party rooms have become much more short term and electoral success focused than policy driven (the aspiring leaders have not changed they also have wanted the top job and been opportunistic just the opportunities are coming more often due to the change in character of party rooms)
.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Its true that what happened in the NT wasn't the same as Rudd - it was much worse.

Knifing him while he's away in Japan? - how low can you get?

Actually it wasn't Gillard's fault Rudd was assassinated, afterall she was just a puppet on the string of the faceless men. Give her the benefit of the doubt that she had no idea as she still has no idea

the faceless men story is just a ruse. Rudd was knifed because his administration had become totally dysfunctional. It was a fully-fledged back-bench revolt - not a faceless men conspiracy. Yes the faceless men acted - but only because there was direct pressure coming from the caucus - and that was because Rudd had lost control.

[colliric]

Its true that what happened in the NT wasn't the same as Rudd - it was much worse.

Knifing him while he's away in Japan? - how low can you get?

the faceless men story is just a ruse. Rudd was knifed because his administration had become totally dysfunctional. It was a fully-fledged back-bench revolt - not a faceless men conspiracy. Yes the faceless men acted - but only because there was direct pressure coming from the caucus - and that was because Rudd had lost control.

Which is the main reason the Labor Party has lost touch with the general public.... Yes I agree it was percieved that particular way also(people seemed to see it both ways). There was once a time when the backbench would nail down and go into an election loss for the longterm good of the party... Now they're shortsightly just thinking of "Will my paycheck still exist after the next election?". No one seems to realise how shortsighted it all looks to the Public. This is like if an AFL side devides to spend only cash on getting players already at their peak(thinking they only need champions to win one), rather than take the risk on Draft picks and developing a champion on their own. That club will not be winning a premiership for many many years.

Neither of the other 2 were facing a coming election yet so obviously that didn't factor into them. These two seemed closer to Keating's ousting of Hawke.