Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .



So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

Simple. Answer: both. Abbott had Rudd under intense pressure and he couldn't handle it. He became a dictatorial control freak and was quite paranoid. So he basically became a one-man government. The results speak for themselves - the ALP plummeted in the polls and he got knifed.  :)

I think more that Abbott had Rudd under intense pressure and his party couldn't handle it.
And the same thing happened last week, only Julia contributed to that as much as Abbott.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:12am:

Simple. Answer: both. Abbott had Rudd under intense pressure and he couldn't handle it. He became a dictatorial control freak and was quite paranoid. So he basically became a one-man government. The results speak for themselves - the ALP plummeted in the polls and he got knifed.  :)

You don't suddenly turn into a dictatorial paranoid control freak, you either are one or not.

You can stop this type of behaviour, with great self control.

If Rudd can do this, he represents a huge threat to the Liberals.

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

Labor can't make up its own mind. 

24 JUN 2010 - Leadership Ballot - Rudd assassinated by his comrades

Labor believes Rudd was a Dudd ;D

22 Feb 2012 - Resigns as Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan lambasted Rudd as "dysfunctional"

Labor believes Rudd was a Dudd ;D

27 Feb 2012 - Leadership ballot Gillard won the leadership election comfortably with 71 votes to Rudd's 31

Labor believes Rudd was a Dudd ;D

21 MAR 2013 - Leadership ballot - Rudd didn't stand.

Labor believes Rudd was a complete Dudd ;D

26 June 2013 - Leadership Ballot - Julia knifed numerous times in the back by her dear comrades

Labor believes Rudd is not a Dudd but he might stop them from political wipeout.....so they turn on their own yet again.
::)

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:43am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:12am: Simple. Answer: both. Abbott had Rudd under intense pressure and he couldn't handle it. He became a dictatorial control freak and was quite paranoid. So he basically became a one-man government. The results speak for themselves - the ALP plummeted in the polls and he got knifed.  :) You don't suddenly turn into a dictatorial paranoid control freak, you either are one or not. You can stop this type of behaviour, with great self control. If Rudd can do this, he represents a huge threat to the Liberals.

believe that if you want but the truth is that ino most cases it is not true. Rudd has Narcisisitic Personality Disorder and without treatment, is micro-managing will remain.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:12am:

Simple. Answer: both

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???

I think that's just a convenient excuse ....  if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed.

Sort of blows your theory away

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:12am: Simple. Answer: both longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  I think that's just a convenient excuse ....  if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed. Sort of blows your theory away

you have a very simplistic way of viewing events, dont you?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:15am:

Rudd has Narcisisitic Personality Disorder and without treatment, is micro-managing will remain.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder usually affects a person's relationships with people, especially their most important ones. People with NPD tend to be abusive to their spouses. Kevin's kids have grown up and his wife doesn't seem to have been horribly damaged.

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:15am: Rudd has Narcisisitic Personality Disorder and without treatment, is micro-managing will remain. Narcissistic Personality Disorder usually affects a person's relationships with people, especially their most important ones. People with NPD tend to be abusive to their spouses. Kevin's kids have grown up and his wife doesn't seem to have been horribly damaged.

er... isnt it true that the only people that like Kevin are those that dont knowhim?  his relationships with almost everyone are dysfunctiona.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:12am: Simple. Answer: both longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  I think that's just a convenient excuse ....  if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed. Sort of blows your theory away you have a very simplistic way of viewing events, dont you?

Comes with JS being a simpleton in the first place...

It doesn't matter - he's up against a man lost for words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wT9XS_TvzQ

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:47pm:

er... isnt it true that the only people that like Kevin are those that dont knowhim?  his relationships with almost everyone are dysfunctiona.

You're talking about his professional relationships. He seems to have a pretty good family life. People with NPD often engage in intimate partner violence because of a desire to control the partner. I haven't seen any signs yet of Kevin being a "controlling" person in family life.

The main reason why Kevin found himself in a situation of a dysfunctional Cabinet was because he became popular, people voted for him and he then had a job to do. I think the reason why he did so badly was because he had no previous experience for the kind of role given to him. He just found himself with more responsibility than he ever had and was under pressure. It's like what happened to Susan Boyle. She became an instant star, was under pressure and suffered a breakdown because she couldn't handle the fame.

Based on what I've read about NPD, that's not a sign of NPD. These are people who never wanted to be famous, but found themselves thrust into the spotlight and pressured to perform. By the time Kevin became popular, he had already been raising a family for some 20 years. If he was a control freak, he had 20 years to prove it.

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:15am: Rudd has Narcisisitic Personality Disorder and without treatment, is micro-managing will remain. Narcissistic Personality Disorder usually affects a person's relationships with people, especially their most important ones. People with NPD tend to be abusive to their spouses. Kevin's kids have grown up and his wife doesn't seem to have been horribly damaged.

Surely, Mnemonic, you are not going to argue with someone like longy who has a Degree in Psychiatry and psychology, are you?

What's that you say??

Oh!! He doesn't have the relevant degrees......

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:12am: Simple. Answer: both longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  I think that's just a convenient excuse ....  if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed. Sort of blows your theory away you have a very simplistic way of viewing events, dont you?

when things are simple , I keep them simple ... you just like to complicate things because that's the only way you can get them to fit your convoluted theories ....

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 12:47pm: er... isnt it true that the only people that like Kevin are those that dont knowhim?  his relationships with almost everyone are dysfunctiona. You're talking about his professional relationships. He seems to have a pretty good family life. People with NPD often engage in intimate partner violence because of a desire to control the partner. I haven't seen any signs yet of Kevin being a "controlling" person in family life. The main reason why Kevin found himself in a situation of a dysfunctional Cabinet was because he became popular, people voted for him and he then had a job to do. I think the reason why he did so badly was because he had no previous experience for the kind of role given to him. He just found himself with more responsibility than he ever had and was under pressure. It's like what happened to Susan Boyle. She became an instant star, was under pressure and suffered a breakdown because she couldn't handle the fame. Based on what I've read about NPD, that's not a sign of NPD. These are people who never wanted to be famous, but found themselves thrust into the spotlight and pressured to perform. By the time Kevin became popular, he had already been raising a family for some 20 years. If he was a control freak, he had 20 years to prove it.

Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:13pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 1:51pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 12:47pm: er... isnt it true that the only people that like Kevin are those that dont knowhim?  his relationships with almost everyone are dysfunctiona. You're talking about his professional relationships. He seems to have a pretty good family life. People with NPD often engage in intimate partner violence because of a desire to control the partner. I haven't seen any signs yet of Kevin being a "controlling" person in family life. The main reason why Kevin found himself in a situation of a dysfunctional Cabinet was because he became popular, people voted for him and he then had a job to do. I think the reason why he did so badly was because he had no previous experience for the kind of role given to him. He just found himself with more responsibility than he ever had and was under pressure. It's like what happened to Susan Boyle. She became an instant star, was under pressure and suffered a breakdown because she couldn't handle the fame. Based on what I've read about NPD, that's not a sign of NPD. These are people who never wanted to be famous, but found themselves thrust into the spotlight and pressured to perform. By the time Kevin became popular, he had already been raising a family for some 20 years. If he was a control freak, he had 20 years to prove it. Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent

Melielongtime, would you mind listing your formal qualifications which might suggest you can be believed about this issue?

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

Cheese!! You can't even join two dots.

It is both.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was h e removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. Cheese!! You can't even join two dots. It is both.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. Cheese!! You can't even join two dots. It is both.

of course it is ..... by the way did you see the UFO over last nights skyline ... the Martians have landed.

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:12am: Simple. Answer: both longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  I think that's just a convenient excuse ....  if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed. Sort of blows your theory away

Rudd faced down Nelson and Turnbull and now Gillard.

Abbott faced down Turnbull, Rudd, Gillard (twice - 2010, 2013) and now it will be Rudd again.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:12am: Simple. Answer: both longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  I think that's just a convenient excuse ....  if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed. Sort of blows your theory away Rudd faced down Nelson and Turnbull and now Gillard. Abbott faced down Turnbull, Rudd, Gillard (twice - 2010, 2013) and now it will be Rudd again.

yes, we all know the history lesson ... but did Rudd go because his colleagues couldn't work with him ,or because Abbott was a master tactician

I find it funny that the libs will with one comment criticise Rudd claiming his own colleagues couldn't work with him and that was why he was removed, and then with the very next breath claim that it was because Abbott is so brilliant. Unless Abbott was passing fake memo's and emails between Rudd and his staff, I don't see what Abbott had to do with it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger. Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger. Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010. after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

name just once?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger. Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010. after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

Defeating? I'd say the polls have shown time and again that labors instability and inability to formulate a consistent message has been the cause of their results.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:13pm:

Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now.

Being assertive or aggressive in one's career doesn't mean a person has NPD -- at least not "clinical" NPD. It's relatively normal for some people to be assertive, aggressive or "cut-throat" in their career. Laypeople like us may like playing with the term NPD, but I don't think it's the same as real NPD.


longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:13pm:

You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent

NPD doesn't necessarily mean a person is physically violent. It doesn't mean you're a wife-beater. Based on what I have read, people with NPD just tend to be controlling in their most intimate relationships. In the outside, however, they appear normal.

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 6:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger. Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010. after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott. name just once?

Rudd 2010
Gillard 2010-2013
etc

or does beating labor in the polls for 3 years not mean anything to you?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 6:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger. Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010. after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott. Defeating? I'd say the polls have shown time and again that labors instability and inability to formulate a consistent message has been the cause of their results.

which they were doing from nov 2007 to nov 2009 but it wasnt until abbott took the job that their fortunes changed. You can wonder why all you like but you cannot deny that the libs were in the toilet until abbott was leader and it changed IMMEDIATELY.

Perhaps we should check with the 11 senior Labor members who quit what they think

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:13pm: Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now. Being assertive or aggressive in one's career doesn't mean a person has NPD -- at least not "clinical" NPD. It's relatively normal for some people to be assertive, aggressive or "cut-throat" in their career. Laypeople like us may like playing with the term NPD, but I don't think it's the same as real NPD. longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:13pm: You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent NPD doesn't necessarily mean a person is physically violent. It doesn't mean you're a wife-beater. Based on what I have read, people with NPD just tend to be controlling in their most intimate relationships. In the outside, however, they appear normal.

Have a read of the comments of people who have worked with Rudd.  HALF of his staff resigned. Everyone in cabinet who worked under him said the same thing. in the QLD PS he was known as Dr Death etc.... there is a pattern emerging and it isnt what you describe with is little more than a highly-focussed workaholic. Rudd BELIEVES he is labors messiah. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 6:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 6:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:02am: Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that 1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him 2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election . So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways. Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate. why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  Very few events in life have only one trigger. Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010. after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott. name just once? Rudd 2010 Gillard 2010-2013 etc or does beating labor in the polls for 3 years not mean anything to you?

the polls?? the polls are nothing ... it's like calling the leader of a 30km marathon, at the 2 km stage, the winner .... the winner is determined at the finish line, in this case, election day  ....

In both cases Abbott had his butt handed to him on a platter.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Perhaps we should check with the 11 senior Labor members who quit what they think

you do that..... until then, perhaps you should refrain from making untrue claims

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:59pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:52pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:12am: Simple. Answer: both longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 11:14am: why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???  I think that's just a convenient excuse ....  if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed. Sort of blows your theory away Rudd faced down Nelson and Turnbull and now Gillard. Abbott faced down Turnbull, Rudd, Gillard (twice - 2010, 2013) and now it will be Rudd again. yes, we all know the history lesson ... but did Rudd go because his colleagues couldn't work with him ,or because Abbott was a master tactician I find it funny that the libs will with one comment criticise Rudd claiming his own colleagues couldn't work with him and that was why he was removed, and then with the very next breath claim that it was because Abbott is so brilliant. Unless Abbott was passing fake memo's and emails between Rudd and his staff, I don't see what Abbott had to do with it.

Kevni was sh!t but was plenty good enough against Turnbull.

Against Abbott, no fvckn chance so they kneecapped him. They installed Gillard because and they thought the laydy was good enough against Tone and would save the day. And she did by swaying the independents with principled statesmanship, sorry, money.

But then she got buggered good and proper, to coin a phrase, and they realised that she was a no-goer after all and had no chance against Abbott (not Turnbull)  - and  so Kevni is back with the fervent hope that there are millions of people suffering short-term memory loss like you.



Kevni is the David Brent of the ALP. And they richly deserve him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP48x8Qhzs

Rudd was and is immensely popular with the electorate, just not with the people who he had to work with probably because he is a narcissistic control freak. However, this doesnt make him a crap PM or a crap person in general. They installed Julia because they thiought she was the great female hope of the Labor party and because they failed to understand that the election has become nothing more than a US style popularity contest. Julia is the opposite of Rudd, unpopular with the electorate but gets on well with her colleagues. Labor party power brokers now , belatedly understand what it is going to take to win the next election. And Julia is not it. Nice person, but

ian wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:26pm:

Rudd was and is immensely popular with the electorate, just not with the people who he had to work with probably because he is a narcissistic control freak. However, this doesnt make him a crap PM or a crap person in general. They installed Julia because they thiought she was the great female hope of the Labor party and because they failed to understand that the election has become nothing more than a US style popularity contest. Julia is the opposite of Rudd, unpopular with the electorate but gets on well with her colleagues. Labor party power brokers now , belatedly understand what it is going to take to win the next election. And Julia is not it. Nice person, but

They got rid of Kevni because he was NOT immensely popular and his electoral chances were diminishing by the week before everyone's eyes to the extent that even the great female hope could manage only a hung parliament and a minority government.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:43pm:

ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:26pm: Rudd was and is immensely popular with the electorate, just not with the people who he had to work with probably because he is a narcissistic control freak. However, this doesnt make him a crap PM or a crap person in general. They installed Julia because they thiought she was the great female hope of the Labor party and because they failed to understand that the election has become nothing more than a US style popularity contest. Julia is the opposite of Rudd, unpopular with the electorate but gets on well with her colleagues. Labor party power brokers now , belatedly understand what it is going to take to win the next election. And Julia is not it. Nice person, but They got rid of Kevni because he was NOT immensely popular and his electoral chances were diminishing by the week before everyone's eyes to the extent that even the great female hope could manage only a hung parliament and a minority government.

Better than what Abbott achieved and what's more, despite all the doomsayers, the 43rd Parliament went full term.

Gillard did very well, and history will say so.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:10pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 6:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:13pm: Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now. Being assertive or aggressive in one's career doesn't mean a person has NPD -- at least not "clinical" NPD. It's relatively normal for some people to be assertive, aggressive or "cut-throat" in their career. Laypeople like us may like playing with the term NPD, but I don't think it's the same as real NPD. longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 5:13pm: You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent NPD doesn't necessarily mean a person is physically violent. It doesn't mean you're a wife-beater. Based on what I have read, people with NPD just tend to be controlling in their most intimate relationships. In the outside, however, they appear normal. Have a read of the comments of people who have worked with Rudd.  HALF of his staff resigned. Everyone in cabinet who worked under him said the same thing. in the QLD PS he was known as Dr Death etc.... there is a pattern emerging and it isnt what you describe with is little more than a highly-focussed workaholic. Rudd BELIEVES he is labors messiah.

Not just Labor's messiah - the country's as well. At least, in his own little mind...

Aussie wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:47pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:43pm: ian wrote on Jul 2nd, 2013 at 10:26pm: Rudd was and is immensely popular with the electorate, just not with the people who he had to work with probably because he is a narcissistic control freak. However, this doesnt make him a crap PM or a crap person in general. They installed Julia because they thiought she was the great female hope of the Labor party and because they failed to understand that the election has become nothing more than a US style popularity contest. Julia is the opposite of Rudd, unpopular with the electorate but gets on well with her colleagues. Labor party power brokers now , belatedly understand what it is going to take to win the next election. And Julia is not it. Nice person, but They got rid of Kevni because he was NOT immensely popular and his electoral chances were diminishing by the week before everyone's eyes to the extent that even the great female hope could manage only a hung parliament and a minority government. Better than what Abbott achieved and what's more, despite all the doomsayers, the 43rd Parliament went full term. Gillard did very well, and history will say so.

Nice re-writing of history there... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

With a thank you to Sprint Cyclist  I reprint his post here for the benefit of John Smith, apparently he didn't read the thread on Rudd's Ministers.



“The stories that were around of the chaos, of the temperament, of the inability to have decisions made – they are not stories”.
(Tony Burke, 22 February 2012)

Rudd’s new Youth Minister, Kate Ellis, said of him:

“Kevin Rudd is the person who has been talking down the Prime Minister (Gillard) in deeply personal ways for well over a year, during the last election campaign and since then”.
(Kate Ellis, 24 February 2012)

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said:

“If you wanted one sentence why the Cabinet and the Caucus and the party moved away from Kevin, it was because it became increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to work difficult issues through with him”.
(Stephen Smith, 23 February 2012)

And most extraordinarily, the person who Rudd asked to preside over our nation’s critical mining industry, Resources Minister Gary Gray, had this to say only ten days ago:

“He (Rudd) doesn't have the courage and the strength that's required to do this job. What he can do is spread confusion. What he can do is get himself into the media. What he can do is create a lot of torment. What he can't do is govern and what he can't do is lead the Labor Party”.

   

red baron wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 8:01am:

With a thank you to Sprint Cyclist  I reprint his post here for the benefit of John Smith, apparently he didn't read the thread on Rudd's Ministers. “The stories that were around of the chaos, of the temperament, of the inability to have decisions made – they are not stories”. (Tony Burke, 22 February 2012) Rudd’s new Youth Minister, Kate Ellis, said of him: “Kevin Rudd is the person who has been talking down the Prime Minister (Gillard) in deeply personal ways for well over a year, during the last election campaign and since then”. (Kate Ellis, 24 February 2012) Defence Minister Stephen Smith said: “If you wanted one sentence why the Cabinet and the Caucus and the party moved away from Kevin, it was because it became increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to work difficult issues through with him”. (Stephen Smith, 23 February 2012) And most extraordinarily, the person who Rudd asked to preside over our nation’s critical mining industry, Resources Minister Gary Gray, had this to say only ten days ago: “He (Rudd) doesn't have the courage and the strength that's required to do this job. What he can do is spread confusion. What he can do is get himself into the media. What he can do is create a lot of torment. What he can't do is govern and what he can't do is lead the Labor Party”.

Apparently Red struggles to understand a very simple question

I know the people working for him didn't like him, and I agree that is the most likely the reason why they got rid of him.

My belief is that is the only reason and not because of some great strategy from Abbott. They would have gotten rid of him whether the lib leader was Abbott, Turnbull, Bishop or Hockey.

The liberal monkeys on here like to claim that it was because of some great strategy by Abbott, my argument is that Abbott just happened to be there, and they would have gotten rid of Rudd regardless of who was leader of the libs. Nothing at all to do with Abbotts politics