So, why did no one challenge Gillard? The answer is simple - no one believes Labor has a hope of winning the next election and therefore no one wants to lead the party to what is certain to be a whopping election defeat. Look at Rudd. He wants the job as badly as she does, but even he knows that now is not the time to be leading the ALP. Gillard wasn't re-elected un-opposed because of her performance, good or bad. It was simply because no one wanted the job and that's all there is to it.

Where to now for Labor? Nowhere but down. Rudd won't challenge and there's no other serious leadership contenders. There simply isn't any chance of recovery between now and September for the ALP. The focus for Labor is minimising the upcoming carnage, not winning. Some at ALP HQ will no doubt be planning for the years ahead as Labor moves along the road to recovery. I doubt we'll see a Labor PM for at least two, possibly even three elections.

Just about the only thing that will come from today's leadership spill will probably be an end to the talk of toppling Gillard, but that's the only good news that exists in the forseeable future for Gillard and Labor.

Not enough existing Threads, you bugger wit?

:D

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Not enough existing Threads, you bugger wit? :D

Ahh, another Laborite upset at the prospect of there being no prospect of Labor winning an election for at least the next decade...

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Not enough existing Threads, you bugger wit? :D

No. We should have 3 pages of threads on this pathetic labor party who couldnt get a chook raffle right. F n idiot.

Obviously even the Leftards agree with my analysis - no one has refuted it but they're happy to turn to abuse, which is their Dear Leaders' default position...

You could have used this Thread.

Or.. this one.

Why start another redundant Thread?

:D

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 7:16pm:

You could have used this Thread. Or.. this one. Why start another redundant Thread? :D

Or this one!!!

Gillard
Still where she is before today - there will be no carbon tax under a government i lead


Swan
Still an idiot - a loyal idiot but an idiot


ALP
2PP should get worse


Rudd
What an absolute coward. Have lost all credibility for future challenges. He's now GAWN


Crean
Hero. But Gawn


Fitzgibbon
Gawn


Abbott
Sprinkles on top of his already great 2PP position. Even his careless comment today have been lost in all of this farce. Abbott still have more ammo to attack Labor about the failed media reform as well as this cowardly challenge

Gillard committed to carbon price: Wong

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2010/7/1/policy-politics/gillard-committed-carbon-price-wong


Quote:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is strongly committed to putting a price on carbon, her climate change minister has said at a major climate summit - 1st July 2010

This is why I preferenced Labor in August 2010.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:21pm:

So, why did no one challenge Gillard? The answer is simple - no one believes Labor has a hope of winning the next election and therefore no one wants to lead the party to what is certain to be a whopping election defeat. Look at Rudd. He wants the job as badly as she does, but even he knows that now is not the time to be leading the ALP. Gillard wasn't re-elected un-opposed because of her performance, good or bad. It was simply because no one wanted the job and that's all there is to it. Where to now for Labor? Nowhere but down. Rudd won't challenge and there's no other serious leadership contenders. There simply isn't any chance of recovery between now and September for the ALP. The focus for Labor is minimising the upcoming carnage, not winning. Some at ALP HQ will no doubt be planning for the years ahead as Labor moves along the road to recovery. I doubt we'll see a Labor PM for at least two, possibly even three elections. Just about the only thing that will come from today's leadership spill will probably be an end to the talk of toppling Gillard, but that's the only good news that exists in the forseeable future for Gillard and Labor.

Possible, but the proposition of Rudd simply not having the numbers is just as probable.

Her guts will be all over the place post election. No one wants to swap places with her before then. 

MOTR wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:31pm:

Gillard committed to carbon price: Wong http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2010/7/1/policy-politics/gillard-committed-carbon-price-wong Quote: Prime Minister Julia Gillard is strongly committed to putting a price on carbon, her climate change minister has said at a major climate summit - 1st July 2010 This is why I preferenced Labor in August 2010.

Then in August 2010 she changed her mind and she said there would be no carbon tax

That's why she lied

MOTR wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:31pm:

Gillard committed to carbon price: Wong http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2010/7/1/policy-politics/gillard-committed-carbon-price-wong Quote: Prime Minister Julia Gillard is strongly committed to putting a price on carbon, her climate change minister has said at a major climate summit - 1st July 2010 This is why I preferenced Labor in August 2010.

Except she blew it big time and the climate has said a big "Stuff you"

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:21pm:

So, why did no one challenge Gillard? The answer is simple - no one believes Labor has a hope of winning the next election and therefore no one wants to lead the party to what is certain to be a whopping election defeat. Look at Rudd. He wants the job as badly as she does, but even he knows that now is not the time to be leading the ALP. Gillard wasn't re-elected un-opposed because of her performance, good or bad. It was simply because no one wanted the job and that's all there is to it. Where to now for Labor? Nowhere but down. Rudd won't challenge and there's no other serious leadership contenders. There simply isn't any chance of recovery between now and September for the ALP. The focus for Labor is minimising the upcoming carnage, not winning. Some at ALP HQ will no doubt be planning for the years ahead as Labor moves along the road to recovery. I doubt we'll see a Labor PM for at least two, possibly even three elections. Just about the only thing that will come from today's leadership spill will probably be an end to the talk of toppling Gillard, but that's the only good news that exists in the forseeable future for Gillard and Labor.

Wow another thread on the same topic as the other 100.

Nobody challenged gillard because nobody wants to change leaders. the whole thing was the shut the dishonest media speculation about rudd up.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 4:34am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:21pm: So, why did no one challenge Gillard? The answer is simple - no one believes Labor has a hope of winning the next election and therefore no one wants to lead the party to what is certain to be a whopping election defeat. Look at Rudd. He wants the job as badly as she does, but even he knows that now is not the time to be leading the ALP. Gillard wasn't re-elected un-opposed because of her performance, good or bad. It was simply because no one wanted the job and that's all there is to it. Where to now for Labor? Nowhere but down. Rudd won't challenge and there's no other serious leadership contenders. There simply isn't any chance of recovery between now and September for the ALP. The focus for Labor is minimising the upcoming carnage, not winning. Some at ALP HQ will no doubt be planning for the years ahead as Labor moves along the road to recovery. I doubt we'll see a Labor PM for at least two, possibly even three elections. Just about the only thing that will come from today's leadership spill will probably be an end to the talk of toppling Gillard, but that's the only good news that exists in the forseeable future for Gillard and Labor. Wow another thread on the same topic as the other 100. Nobody challenged gillard because nobody wants to change leaders. the whole thing was the shut the dishonest media speculation about rudd up. SOB

Oh I see, you mean that since Conroy's  media muzzling  failed, they came up with this cunning plan to protect Julia from being picked on.

Fish is good for the brain, spot. Go and nibble on a sardine...

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:26pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:31pm: Gillard committed to carbon price: Wong http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2010/7/1/policy-politics/gillard-committed-carbon-price-wong Quote: Prime Minister Julia Gillard is strongly committed to putting a price on carbon, her climate change minister has said at a major climate summit - 1st July 2010 This is why I preferenced Labor in August 2010. Then in August 2010 she changed her mind and she said there would be no carbon tax That's why she lied

That's a lie by omission, Maqqa. She said she was absolutely committed to putting a price on carbon.

Meanwhile Abbott puts us all in jeapordy by fostering denialism and delaying inevitable reforms. He is a grub and that is how he will be viewed by history.

MOTR wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:31pm:

Gillard committed to carbon price: Wong http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2010/7/1/policy-politics/gillard-committed-carbon-price-wong Quote: Prime Minister Julia Gillard is strongly committed to putting a price on carbon, her climate change minister has said at a major climate summit - 1st July 2010 This is why I preferenced Labor in August 2010.

... and this is why Labor will just about cease to exist after September!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ

... after Penny Wong said this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_KVBwKU7B8

MOTR wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 5:45am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:26pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:31pm: Gillard committed to carbon price: Wong http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2010/7/1/policy-politics/gillard-committed-carbon-price-wong Quote: Prime Minister Julia Gillard is strongly committed to putting a price on carbon, her climate change minister has said at a major climate summit - 1st July 2010 This is why I preferenced Labor in August 2010. Then in August 2010 she changed her mind and she said there would be no carbon tax That's why she lied That's a lie by omission, Maqqa. She said she was absolutely committed to putting a price on carbon. Meanwhile Abbott puts us all in jeapordy by fostering denialism and delaying inevitable reforms. He is a grub and that is how he will be viewed by history.

Look at the dates in your post - I did not omit anything

As far as I see it, there are two options

Do you vote for someone who can't run the party but is doing a reasonable job of running the country?


or do you vote for someone who can keep his party in check but looks like he is going to drag the country down ?


As bad as labor looks, I just do not see Abbott as any sort of credible PM.

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:23pm:

Not enough existing Threads, you bugger wit? :D

What is wrong with opening a new thread?

Maybe you have lots of time to go searching for answers to your posts but I just avoid long threads. Most of these keep growing on slinging matches.

Labor = Lose
Liberal = Win
Australian Public = Lose/Lose!

olde.sault wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 10:44am:

Aussie wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 6:23pm: Not enough existing Threads, you bugger wit? :D What is wrong with opening a new thread? Maybe you have lots of time to go searching for answers to your posts but I just avoid long threads. Most of these keep growing on slinging matches.

For once I agree with you Olde Sault

John Smith wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 10:20am:

As far as I see it, there are two options Do you vote for someone who can't run the party but is doing a reasonable job of running the country? or do you vote for someone who can keep his party in check but looks like he is going to drag the country down ? As bad as labor looks, I just do not see Abbott as any sort of credible PM.

Bob Hawke

If you can't run your party - you can't run the country

and your observation on Abbott is simply a bias guess

Maqqa wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 11:12am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 10:20am: As far as I see it, there are two options Do you vote for someone who can't run the party but is doing a reasonable job of running the country? or do you vote for someone who can keep his party in check but looks like he is going to drag the country down ? As bad as labor looks, I just do not see Abbott as any sort of credible PM. Bob Hawke If you can't run your party - you can't run the country and your observation on Abbott is simply a bias guess

So what Hawke is saying is that Abbott is the right choice.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 12:20pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 11:12am: John Smith wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 10:20am: As far as I see it, there are two options Do you vote for someone who can't run the party but is doing a reasonable job of running the country? or do you vote for someone who can keep his party in check but looks like he is going to drag the country down ? As bad as labor looks, I just do not see Abbott as any sort of credible PM. Bob Hawke If you can't run your party - you can't run the country and your observation on Abbott is simply a bias guess So what Hawke is saying is that Abbott is the right choice.

yes

Maqqa wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 12:45pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 12:20pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 11:12am: John Smith wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 10:20am: As far as I see it, there are two options Do you vote for someone who can't run the party but is doing a reasonable job of running the country? or do you vote for someone who can keep his party in check but looks like he is going to drag the country down ? As bad as labor looks, I just do not see Abbott as any sort of credible PM. Bob Hawke If you can't run your party - you can't run the country and your observation on Abbott is simply a bias guess So what Hawke is saying is that Abbott is the right choice. yes

Julia called the spill and got a 100% support from Labor.

Last count Abbott was supported by one person more than Turnbull.

your observation on Abbott is simply a bias guess

It is the view that virtually all the evidence suggests as almost certain.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2013 at 11:12am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 22nd, 2013 at 10:20am: As far as I see it, there are two options Do you vote for someone who can't run the party but is doing a reasonable job of running the country? or do you vote for someone who can keep his party in check but looks like he is going to drag the country down ? As bad as labor looks, I just do not see Abbott as any sort of credible PM. Bob Hawke If you can't run your party - you can't run the country and your observation on Abbott is simply a bias guess

it is biased, as is your opinion that he will be any good, but it is certainly not a guess .. it is based on his actions in his time as a minister under Howard and as opposition leader. ...