Labor party imploding!!!!

[Dry Rot]

short term yes he might be challenged by a hack who feels its their time to step into the light..maybe Carmen Lawrence? Or would she wait the 7 years?

Tanner, Rudd and Smith aren't hacks.

I am not as concerned as some by the stepping down of the older guard though McMullan was a concern as that was over portfolio issues and not generational issues.

Tanner?

 

[BlueBoy83]

So how much money are you putting down on Bush, BlueBoy83?

hmmmm dont know if i will??

i just reckon a 70% return for bush is great odds ... kerry should be about $3.50 and bush around $1.20 imo!!!!

ill check out if the tab takes bets for it ... if so maybe $100 (pay for a night out).

 

[butterflykiss]

Who really cares? after another three years of the Rodent and the sale of Telstra giving the Libs another 30 odd billion to bribe the suckers Labor will have no hopeof winning no matter who is leading the party.

 

[OldLion]

I'm no Liberal supporter, but this has to be the greatest Federal election win I can remember.

1977 ( esp. after 1975 ) was pretty ordinary. Fraser had senate control and Labor was screwed both Federally and at State level. However, big Mal was an 'old style' conservative ( pre-Thatcher ) so amazingly he didn't run a massive right wing attack.

 

[Dry Rot]

1977 ( esp. after 1975 ) was pretty ordinary. Fraser had senate control and Labor was screwed both Federally and at State level. However, big Mal was an 'old style' conservative ( pre-Thatcher ) so amazingly he didn't run a massive right wing attack.

I suppose that my point was that I can't remember a govt winning a fourth election like Howard did, not just the sheer majority.

 

[Frodo]

The Labour party can't implode. At root it is a factionalised rag bag of a party controlled by the trade unions. Changing shadows, front benches or the party room curtains aint gonna change anything.
Until control goes back to the grass roots members Labour is a lost cause.

And isn't it strange that after an election belting all we hear is that Howard won it by telling lies.
Now the truth comes out, that Labour lost it by running a pathetic campaign with a dud leader. And he stays, incredibly. Not only that!! he looks like having a deputy that is pathetic to say the least, architect of the medicare gold fiasco and no treasury experience at all.

It looks like Howard and Costello v Abbot and Costello, because Labour is laughable at present.

 

[hoss]

The Labour party can't implode. At root it is a factionalised rag bag of a party controlled by the trade unions. Changing shadows, front benches or the party room curtains aint gonna change anything.
Until control goes back to the grass roots members Labour is a lost cause.

And isn't it strange that after an election belting all we hear is that Howard won it by telling lies.
Now the truth comes out, that Labour lost it by running a pathetic campaign with a dud leader. And he stays, incredibly. Not only that!! he looks like having a deputy that is pathetic to say the least, architect of the medicare gold fiasco and no treasury experience at all.

It looks like Howard and Costello v Abbot and Costello, because Labour is laughable at present.

And yet the WA Libs (in an even worse rabble and with a complete dud as leader) will win your vote. Please explain?? I suspect you're one of these people who vote with the "footy team" mentality, rather than look at issues objectively.

 

[BrisGirl]

Latham's mates could destroy him
GLENN MILNE
24oct04
IF Mark Latham appoints his key supporter, Julia Gillard, as Shadow Treasurer, his leadership could be terminal, senior Labor figures warn.

According to these insiders, if the ambitious but economically untried Ms Gillard gets the plum job it will confirm that Latham is running scared of more worthy candidates such as Kevin Rudd, Stephen Smith and Wayne Swan, all of whom are seen as potential leadership rivals.

Gillard, along with former leader Simon Crean, is among a small coterie of Latham acolytes. The Labor leader's internal critics say that after fighting to save Crean's frontbench position, the appointment of Gillard to the second most powerful position in the Opposition would confirm Latham was putting his own interests ahead of the party's.

While Gillard was the firm favourite following a caucus ballot for the front bench on Friday, speculation was mounting in Labor circles yesterday that Latham might realise the folly of such a move.

"We're led to defeat by a Gough Whitlam protege with an economic credibility problem," said one ALP insider. "So what do we do? We send in a Joan Kirner protege to fix it."

Gillard is being held responsible for one of the biggest policy failures of the campaign – Medicare Gold. Frontbenchers and backbenchers are asking if that is the case, why she should be rewarded?

"If he continues to wallow in the politics of Medicare Gold he's gone," said one. "The trouble is the people who support him and who he owes – they're steeped in that sort of politics. The people of substance – where are they? On the backbench."

Those worried by Gillard as Shadow Treasurer say if it comes to pass it also signals that Latham has given up any hope of winning the next election.

"That's a strategy to win in six years," said one frontbencher. "And I find that reprehensible."

This view is echoed by others aghast at Latham's decision to allow a group of experienced frontbenchers to go to the backbench. They believe his determination to inject new, young and untried talent demonstrates he has already conceded the next election.

Many caucus members are similarly appalled at the damage caused by Latham's battle to save Crean. Said one: "I don't think Latham realises the fragility of his position. And what he's done on Crean is just suicidal. Of all the people going to the backbench, voters are going to say: 'Why not him?'

"Gillard is part of the tight little group propping up both Crean and Latham. He's got to get a reality check real quick."

Concerned MPs point out that it was the economy that cost the Opposition the election. "And for the past six years Simon has either been leader or Shadow Treasurer. Someone's got to connect the dots," said one.

Asked if Latham was in denial about the reasons for the election defeat, one MP replied: "Big time."

For the Opposition that means big trouble.


It is not looking good for Latham, he is losing major high-ranking support.

We should start a poll on how long he will last in the job

 

[Frodo]

And yet the WA Libs (in an even worse rabble and with a complete dud as leader) will win your vote. Please explain?? I suspect you're one of these people who vote with the "footy team" mentality, rather than look at issues objectively.

You suspect wrongly.

Labour won the last election by promising a lot of things that they fragrantly had no intention of keeping. Barnett & Co may be marginally less competent than Gallop Inc. but I believe they are far more honest, hence my vote.

And at the last election my vote was not Liberal in both houses so that backs the fact that the footy mentality is a badly directed jibe.

 

[bunsen burner]

NSW is in the same sad state of affairs as WA. Many people are being turned away from hospitals because there are not enough beds. You have to ask how this is possible with a state govt that has had much more revenue than any other NSW govt in history due stamp duty from the real estate boom and speed cameras. There's no other way to describe it other than 'gross incompetance'. Sadly the opposition offer a worse alternative in John Brogden.

You have to laugh at these die hard ALP supporters on BF who are under the illusion that the ALP stands for social justice whilst the Libs are greedy, self interested, and don't care about the average Joe. The current NSW Govt's neglect of the health service whilst making record profits is disgraceful.

 

[Pessimistic]

Well just expect more of the same.

Latham for all his faults was going to tackle these issues (like he did with MP's super - I remember that was treat like a joke until howard took his policy).

And medicare gold - I suppose that will be derided until howard steals that policy too.


We need to keep latham because howard needs someone to think up his policies

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Guillard has said she will not take on treasury so the likes of Glenn Milne can settle down.

Keep going Latham - get the youngblood on board and keep purging the old fogeys. The only real loss so far is Lindsay Tanner. He'll be back.

 

[Frodo]

Guillard has said she will not take on treasury so the likes of Glenn Milne can settle down.

Keep going Latham - get the youngblood on board and keep purging the old fogeys. The only real loss so far is Lindsay Tanner. He'll be back.

The only loss is the next election unless the Labour party is reformed and Latham and his failed rabble are got shot of.

Keep supporting the party line by all means (even though the majority of the backbench disagree), but your support is one of many that will keep Labour in opposition until real change happens.

In effect, you are supporting the Coalition by your stance

 

[Dippers Donuts]

The only loss is the next election unless the Labour party is reformed and Latham and his failed rabble are got shot of.

Keep supporting the party line by all means (even though the majority of the backbench disagree), but your support is one of many that will keep Labour in opposition until real change happens.

In effect, you are supporting the Coalition by your stance

Have you been studying jane's "How to be incoherent when making a post" handbook again?