A letter from Kevin.

I have just made an announcement that will change the way Labor leaders are elected.

On July 22 there will be a special caucus meeting where I will propose:

The Leader of the Australian Labor Party is elected by a 50/50 split vote by Labor branch members and the Federal Labor caucus;

There are three triggers to change the leader: a leader’s resignation, a federal election loss or a 75 per cent vote of no confidence by the Federal Labor caucus; and

The Federal Labor caucus will decide the members of the Ministry or Shadow Ministry, not the Leader.

These changes are necessary to ensure stability in Labor’s leadership and promote unity.

We’re on the verge of a historic change for our Party – click here to join today.

I hope you support me in these changes to make Labor a more open, democratic Party.

Thanks,

Kinda hypocritical don't you think? Although it will settle some of the unrest for the future to come.

MOTR wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

A letter from Kevin. I have just made an announcement that will change the way Labor leaders are elected. On July 22 there will be a special caucus meeting where I will propose: The Leader of the Australian Labor Party is elected by a 50/50 split vote by Labor branch members and the Federal Labor caucus; There are three triggers to change the leader: a leader’s resignation, a federal election loss or a 75 per cent vote of no confidence by the Federal Labor caucus; and The Federal Labor caucus will decide the members of the Ministry or Shadow Ministry, not the Leader. These changes are necessary to ensure stability in Labor’s leadership and promote unity. We’re on the verge of a historic change for our Party – click here to join today. I hope you support me in these changes to make Labor a more open, democratic Party. Thanks,

With kevin, as we all know...  it's all about Kevin.
he's just trying to shore up his position into the future.

Grendel wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 6:57pm: A letter from Kevin. I have just made an announcement that will change the way Labor leaders are elected. On July 22 there will be a special caucus meeting where I will propose: The Leader of the Australian Labor Party is elected by a 50/50 split vote by Labor branch members and the Federal Labor caucus; There are three triggers to change the leader: a leader’s resignation, a federal election loss or a 75 per cent vote of no confidence by the Federal Labor caucus; and The Federal Labor caucus will decide the members of the Ministry or Shadow Ministry, not the Leader. These changes are necessary to ensure stability in Labor’s leadership and promote unity. We’re on the verge of a historic change for our Party – click here to join today. I hope you support me in these changes to make Labor a more open, democratic Party. Thanks, With kevin, as we all know...  it's all about Kevin. he's just trying to shore up his position into the future.

Yes, it also occurred to me that Rudd is making it hard to dislodge him.  But then, when you look at it, there are two parts to his proposal.

1.  The circumstance when a Leader will vacate.
2.  How a new Leader is elected.

As for 1:

Nothing surprising that a resignation or an electoral defeat would be a trigger.  Makes sense.  A 75% caucus petition support......that's new.

But, really, in effect, any Leader who waited for 75% to sign up knowing that there was say, 60% would be causing damage.  For example, Gillard called the spill not (publicly) knowing what the numbers actually were on the alleged Petition to oust her.

2.  This is very new, and Rudd will successfully sell it given his position of strength right now.  In this regard I say that Rudd is taking advantage of his current powerful position to bring in a change he might have less chance with in other circumstances.  He is saying to the ALP......"Well, You and I both know that without me right now, you are phucked.  If you want me to run this campaign, you will accept that Caucus no longer has sole control over leadership....after there has been a spill trigger.  (See Item 1.)  ALP general membership will have equal say."

Rudd is taking ruthless advantage of his current grip on the Party.

But:

What is so wrong with what he proposes?  Yes, it shores up his present position, but that comes with the territory of making change.   

The LNP claim to be making political gains by pointing out the lack of stability in recent ALP leadership.  These proposals address exactly that.

The LNP often refer to 'faceless me' controlling leadership.  These proposals also address that by giving general Party membership an equal say with Caucus.

So, yes, Grendel, Rudd benefits......but apart from that, what say ye about the concepts?

Labor needs to do something to prevent the shemozzle of the last 3 years replaying at some point in the future. Good on him for trying. 

I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far.

Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?'

They will have plenty of time to adopt reforms and play pass the parcel full of taxpayer money when they are in opposition That they are going through these ructions as the incumbent is a terrible look.

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:55pm: I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far. Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?'

I think it's a fairly reasonable ask given the recent circumstances. Both parties are known for dumping leaders after election losses, but if someone wins an election they should be given the chance to see out that term unless extraordinary circumstances occur. Rudds suggestion to have the rank and file involved guarantees  a fair chance for any leader. Who could blame him for wanting to do this. In fact, it probably shows he is fairly confident of doing Abbott over, and wants some insurance for after it.

I, for one, sincerely hope that Kevni comes a huge cropper and loses, dramatically.  He is so full of himself. He promised that he would not challenge Gillard only a week before he did.  What a bloody liar he is.  It is ALL about Kevni ... he is a legend in his own mind.  What a grubby little sucker! Hope he falls flat on his pudgy face and gets his hair out of wack!  ;D

skippy. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:05pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:55pm: I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far. Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?' I think it's a fairly reasonable ask given the recent circumstances. Both parties are known for dumping leaders after election losses, but if someone wins an election they should be given the chance to see out that term unless extraordinary circumstances occur. Rudds suggestion to have the rank and file involved guarantees  a fair chance for any leader. Who could blame him for wanting to do this. In fact, it probably shows he is fairly confident of doing Abbott over, and wants some insurance for after it.

It should be difficult to change leaders but not impossible. In the situation we had where Gillard was going to be destroyed in the election the option to change to a leader with a chance needs to be available. Locking in stupidity is not the best idea.

Making it more difficult to oust an elected leader is a good Idea involving the rank and file in some way is also positive, making it virtually impossible is going too far.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:05pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:55pm: I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far. Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?' I think it's a fairly reasonable ask given the recent circumstances. Both parties are known for dumping leaders after election losses, but if someone wins an election they should be given the chance to see out that term unless extraordinary circumstances occur. Rudds suggestion to have the rank and file involved guarantees  a fair chance for any leader. Who could blame him for wanting to do this. In fact, it probably shows he is fairly confident of doing Abbott over, and wants some insurance for after it. It should be difficult to change leaders but not impossible. In the situation we had where Gillard was going to be destroyed in the election the option to change to a leader with a chance needs to be available. Locking in stupidity is not the best idea. Making it more difficult to oust an elected leader is a good Idea involving the rank and file in some way is also positive, making it virtually impossible is going too far.

I don't think he's making it impossible. If this was current ALP policy I reckons the rank and file would have opted to oust Gillard given even The likes of Shorton and Wong admitted they were doomed under Gillard.

the only thing that needs to change is that representatives for any area should be chosen by the rank and file in that area .... if that had happened they wouldn't have owed their loyalty to either Rudd or Gillard and none of this would have happened in the first place.

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:04pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 6:57pm: A letter from Kevin. I have just made an announcement that will change the way Labor leaders are elected. On July 22 there will be a special caucus meeting where I will propose: The Leader of the Australian Labor Party is elected by a 50/50 split vote by Labor branch members and the Federal Labor caucus; There are three triggers to change the leader: a leader’s resignation, a federal election loss or a 75 per cent vote of no confidence by the Federal Labor caucus; and The Federal Labor caucus will decide the members of the Ministry or Shadow Ministry, not the Leader. These changes are necessary to ensure stability in Labor’s leadership and promote unity. We’re on the verge of a historic change for our Party – click here to join today. I hope you support me in these changes to make Labor a more open, democratic Party. Thanks, With kevin, as we all know...  it's all about Kevin. he's just trying to shore up his position into the future. Yes, it also occurred to me that Rudd is making it hard to dislodge him.  But then, when you look at it, there are two parts to his proposal. 1.  The circumstance when a Leader will vacate. 2.  How a new Leader is elected. As for 1: Nothing surprising that a resignation or an electoral defeat would be a trigger.  Makes sense.  A 75% caucus petition support......that's new. But, really, in effect, any Leader who waited for 75% to sign up knowing that there was say, 60% would be causing damage.  For example, Gillard called the spill not (publicly) knowing what the numbers actually were on the alleged Petition to oust her. 2.  This is very new, and Rudd will successfully sell it given his position of strength right now.  In this regard I say that Rudd is taking advantage of his current powerful position to bring in a change he might have less chance with in other circumstances.  He is saying to the ALP......"Well, You and I both know that without me right now, you are phucked.  If you want me to run this campaign, you will accept that Caucus no longer has sole control over leadership....after there has been a spill trigger.  (See Item 1.)  ALP general membership will have equal say." Rudd is taking ruthless advantage of his current grip on the Party. But: What is so wrong with what he proposes?  Yes, it shores up his present position, but that comes with the territory of making change.    The LNP claim to be making political gains by pointing out the lack of stability in recent ALP leadership.  These proposals address exactly that. The LNP often refer to 'faceless me' controlling leadership.  These proposals also address that by giving general Party membership an equal say with Caucus. So, yes, Grendel, Rudd benefits......but apart from that, what say ye about the concepts?

There is but one concept... Kevin keeping Kevin in.

As for the future of it in the ALP...  it will be changed again.

I think the Dems used to have a membership ballot.  They did a lot of things right.  That's why I used to vote for them.  :)

Great idea. Makes joining a political party worthwhile.

skippy. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:05pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:55pm: I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far. Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?' I think it's a fairly reasonable ask given the recent circumstances. Both parties are known for dumping leaders after election losses, but if someone wins an election they should be given the chance to see out that term unless extraordinary circumstances occur. Rudds suggestion to have the rank and file involved guarantees  a fair chance for any leader. Who could blame him for wanting to do this. In fact, it probably shows he is fairly confident of doing Abbott over, and wants some insurance for after it. It should be difficult to change leaders but not impossible. In the situation we had where Gillard was going to be destroyed in the election the option to change to a leader with a chance needs to be available. Locking in stupidity is not the best idea. Making it more difficult to oust an elected leader is a good Idea involving the rank and file in some way is also positive, making it virtually impossible is going too far. I don't think he's making it impossible. If this was current ALP policy I reckons the rank and file would have opted to oust Gillard given even The likes of Shorton and Wong admitted they were doomed under Gillard.

They would almost never get 75% unless corruption or something drastic was involved.

John Smith wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:17pm:

the only thing that needs to change is that representatives for any area should be chosen by the rank and file in that area .... if that had happened they wouldn't have owed their loyalty to either Rudd or Gillard and none of this would have happened in the first place.

Perhaps this will be the next reform.

skippy. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:05pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:55pm: I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far. Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?' I think it's a fairly reasonable ask given the recent circumstances. Both parties are known for dumping leaders after election losses, but if someone wins an election they should be given the chance to see out that term unless extraordinary circumstances occur. Rudds suggestion to have the rank and file involved guarantees  a fair chance for any leader. Who could blame him for wanting to do this. In fact, it probably shows he is fairly confident of doing Abbott over, and wants some insurance for after it. It should be difficult to change leaders but not impossible. In the situation we had where Gillard was going to be destroyed in the election the option to change to a leader with a chance needs to be available. Locking in stupidity is not the best idea. Making it more difficult to oust an elected leader is a good Idea involving the rank and file in some way is also positive, making it virtually impossible is going too far. I don't think he's making it impossible. If this was current ALP policy I reckons the rank and file would have opted to oust Gillard given even The likes of Shorton and Wong admitted they were doomed under Gillard.

But where is the trigger mechanism for the rank and file?

Isn't this also about breaking down the power of the unions within the Labor party?

Quote:

ALP members would have a say in the election of the party leader, under party reforms proposed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd said he was proposing the leader of the party be jointly elected by party members and the caucus. Announcing the plan in Canberra late on Monday, Mr Rudd said the reform was important to ensure a "vibrant, modern" party in the future. ''I believe it will encourage people to re-engage in the political process and to bring back those supporters who have become disillusioned," he said. Under the proposal, half the votes would come from the party membership, with the other half given to members of the parliamentary party. Any candidate for the leadership would need the initial backing of 20 per cent of caucus members. ''Today, more than ever, Australians demand to know that the Prime Minister they elect, is the Prime Minister they get,'' Mr Rudd said. Mr Rudd will seek approval for the change, which he described as ''the most significant reform of the Australian Labor Party in recent history'', at a special meeting of the caucus on July 22. Mr Rudd said if caucus rejected his proposals he would seek a special rules conference to make the changes. ''They will ensure that power will never again rest in the hands of the factional few,'' he said. Mr Rudd said the change would provide "long-term stability of the party leadership''. Mr Rudd is also proposing another change that would prevent the removal of a leader mid-term if Labor formed government. ''If a leader of the Australian Labor Party takes the party to the election and they are returned to form the government of the nation, that person remains as leader of the party and the government for the duration of that term,'' Mr Rudd said. He said this would prevent anyone walking in with a challenge and saying to the leader: ''Ok sunshine, it's over.'' He said the quality of decision-making would be eroded if leaders had to ''look over their shoulders'' all the time if there were bad polls. But he said an election for the leader could be called after the resignation of the leader, at the request of the leader, or if 75 per cent of caucus members signed a petition calling for an election ''on the grounds that the current leader has brought the party into disrepute''. He said an election for leader would automatically occur following an election loss. Mr Rudd said grassroots members would not play a part in the election of the deputy leader, Senate leader and deputy Senate leader. Only members of the parliamentary party would elect these positions. Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who was with Mr Rudd for the announcement, said the proposals represented ''the most significant empowerment of our membership in our history''. The proposed changes come only days after Mr Rudd revealed a raft of other party reforms, aimed at stamping out corruption. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-members-to-have-say-in-leader-under-rudd-proposal-20130708-2pm3a.html#ixzz2YUjOTLAq

MOTR wrote on Jul 9^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 9:17pm: the only thing that needs to change is that representatives for any area should be chosen by the rank and file in that area .... if that had happened they wouldn't have owed their loyalty to either Rudd or Gillard and none of this would have happened in the first place. Perhaps this will be the next reform.

small steps

I would be surprised if this isn't defeated.

Much too ambitious without enough thought and too much down side.

Lest We forget..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acX-1bc-agY

I think it is a move under pressure from the Republican movement.....a slight edging towards Republican democracy....as well as a future protective measure to preclude a repetition of The Gillard Coup (sponsored by the Labor Right wing and brought to you at a parliament near you to make a 'statement' using a token woman)....

On that basis there is more to it than first meets the eye - it is a strike against that Right wing and the money-changers in the Temple.. I think it is a positive step to return pre-selection to the hands of the Branch members. 

Will put a lot of Party favourites out of a job, though...... and would have terminated Julia's seat anyway..... unless she could persuade the members to keep her....

Hasta La Vista..... BABY!  ::)

ADDS:-  thank god it's over now:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXfP2763gYo

The Unions are fighting back a tad on Rudd's initiative.  I'll bet Rudd will win this for a very simple reason.  When they have their meeting to decide the matter, if there is a real crunch he will invoke the very reason he is doing this now.....his position of absolute strength.  He will say, "Adopt this (or some refinement I am happy with) or I will resign and you lot can be slaughtered at the coming Poll."

The bloke knows when he has muscle and when to use it.  Now is the time.  He'd be wasting his time after the election no matter what the outcome was.

Now is the moment, and he will not let it pass. 

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:05pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:55pm: I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far. Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?' I think it's a fairly reasonable ask given the recent circumstances. Both parties are known for dumping leaders after election losses, but if someone wins an election they should be given the chance to see out that term unless extraordinary circumstances occur. Rudds suggestion to have the rank and file involved guarantees  a fair chance for any leader. Who could blame him for wanting to do this. In fact, it probably shows he is fairly confident of doing Abbott over, and wants some insurance for after it. It should be difficult to change leaders but not impossible. In the situation we had where Gillard was going to be destroyed in the election the option to change to a leader with a chance needs to be available. Locking in stupidity is not the best idea. Making it more difficult to oust an elected leader is a good Idea involving the rank and file in some way is also positive, making it virtually impossible is going too far.

I'm in favour of the changes, though I'm sure I haven't looked at if from every angle. However, I'm concerned that the trigger which requires 75 per cent of caucus members to support a leadership spill, is far too high. I'd be much happier with 66 per cent.

Aussie wrote on Jul 9^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

The Unions are fighting back a tad on Rudd's initiative.  I'll bet Rudd will win this for a very simple reason.  When they have their meeting to decide the matter, if there is a real crunch he will invoke the very reason he is doing this now.....his position of absolute strength.  He will say, "Adopt this (or some refinement I am happy with) or I will resign and you lot can be slaughtered at the coming Poll." The bloke knows when he has muscle and when to use it.  Now is the time.  He'd be wasting his time after the election no matter what the outcome was. Now is the moment, and he will not let it pass.

I was expecting the unions to push back. Your analysis seems spot on, Aussie.

My control is being eroded, so I'm beginning to think this is not a positive development.....

---

Rudd is going to win the election.

His sheer audacity appeals to the Aussie sense of larrikin quirkiness. He's been a political Rocky Balboa. Got the sh*t kicked out of him, but then climbed back into the ring for one last go at the title.

He got beaten and stomped into the ground, but then rose up again like Christ after the crucifixion.

Somewhere there's a cave in Australia with a rock moved aside...  8-)

 

People like someone with the courage to stand up to the Labor and Liberal thugs and beat them at their own game.
Mr Rudd just happens to be that man..and thats why the public luv the little bugga.

Did some very clevah dick up there ^^^^^^ mention that 60% was a more likely number, and that Rudd's proposals would get through.

Today was the day Rudd also got the ALP back on a better standing internally.

Kevin is going pretty damn fine, thank you very much!

Aussie wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Kevin is going pretty damn fine, thank you very much!

By standing on the heads of desperate and displaced women and children.

What price morals?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 2:16pm: Kevin is going pretty damn fine, thank you very much! By standing on the heads of desperate and displaced women and children. What price morals?

http://i43.tinypic.com/160t1k6.jpg

MOTR wrote on Jul 9^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

Isn't this also about breaking down the power of the unions within the Labor party?

Yep!!
And also puts to bed another one of Abbott's attacks.....

;)

John Smith wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:17pm:

the only thing that needs to change is that representatives for any area should be chosen by the rank and file in that area .... if that had happened they wouldn't have owed their loyalty to either Rudd or Gillard and none of this would have happened in the first place.

I have long been an advocate for this, even to the extent of putting up a candidate in defiance of Head Office and supporting ONLY that candidate.

:)

Bad idea. Leave it how it is.

Sometimes you need to give a leader the flick and do it quickly.
Gillard for example.

I'd rather those actually elected into power to decide who leads them over what is basically a rabble having any say in the matter.

Lobo wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 9:17pm: the only thing that needs to change is that representatives for any area should be chosen by the rank and file in that area .... if that had happened they wouldn't have owed their loyalty to either Rudd or Gillard and none of this would have happened in the first place. I have long been an advocate for this, even to the extent of putting up a candidate in defiance of Head Office and supporting ONLY that candidate. :)

Capacity for that has existed for decades, and still does.  Plebiscites, they are known as.

Lobo wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 9th, 2013 at 8:04am: Isn't this also about breaking down the power of the unions within the Labor party? Yep!! And also puts to bed another one of Abbott's attacks..... ;)

Yes, no more 'faceless men' stuff.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/mark-arbib.gif

MOTR wrote on Jul 10^th, 2013 at 6:46am:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 8:05pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 7:55pm: I think there some merit in what he is proposing but he wants to go too far. Okay.  Where is the 'merit' and where is the 'too far?' I think it's a fairly reasonable ask given the recent circumstances. Both parties are known for dumping leaders after election losses, but if someone wins an election they should be given the chance to see out that term unless extraordinary circumstances occur. Rudds suggestion to have the rank and file involved guarantees  a fair chance for any leader. Who could blame him for wanting to do this. In fact, it probably shows he is fairly confident of doing Abbott over, and wants some insurance for after it. It should be difficult to change leaders but not impossible. In the situation we had where Gillard was going to be destroyed in the election the option to change to a leader with a chance needs to be available. Locking in stupidity is not the best idea. Making it more difficult to oust an elected leader is a good Idea involving the rank and file in some way is also positive, making it virtually impossible is going too far. I'm in favour of the changes, though I'm sure I haven't looked at if from every angle. However, I'm concerned that the trigger which requires 75 per cent of caucus members to support a leadership spill, is far too high. I'd be much happier with 66 per cent.

Yeah....
I was thinking 2/3s plus 1.
Works elsewhere.

:)

"I expect Mr Rudd to go to the polls as soon as he possibly can because plainly the things that Mr Rudd has been doing over the last few weeks have no real substance," Mr Abbott said.

Has this dick ever had a positive thought???

:)

Is this the first ever political 'quadruple negative'??

Mr Abbott's assertion that an ETS - to be introduced on July 1, 2014, as the government will announce on Tuesday - was a ''so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one'' sparked an immediate backlash, with critics pointing out that former Liberal prime minister John Howard designed a similar scheme.

:D

Aussie wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:50pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 2:45pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 9:17pm: the only thing that needs to change is that representatives for any area should be chosen by the rank and file in that area .... if that had happened they wouldn't have owed their loyalty to either Rudd or Gillard and none of this would have happened in the first place. I have long been an advocate for this, even to the extent of putting up a candidate in defiance of Head Office and supporting ONLY that candidate. :) Capacity for that has existed for decades, and still does.  Plebiscites, they are known as.

I think John is, I know I am, talking about local branch members choosing their own candidate (preferably local) to run for election without interference from Head Office.

:)

It's the unnnions what runn labaaaar.    ;D

Lobo wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 3:15pm:

"I expect Mr Rudd to go to the polls as soon as he possibly can because plainly the things that Mr Rudd has been doing over the last few weeks have no real substance," Mr Abbott said. Has this dick ever had a positive thought??? :)

What's wrong with you ?

You've managed to get yourself online

Yet you pretend to believe 'our politicians' need to think


Why would they need to think ?

Everything they say and do is dictated to them by their offshore owners

And you get to pay them.  For LIFE


Is it that you genuinely don't know this ?

Or are you yet another here who pretends to believe pollies 'make decisions'

because you're hoping to con those who might browse this forum ?

Quote:

I think John is, I know I am, talking about local branch members choosing their own candidate (preferably local) to run for election without interference from Head Office.

As with the LNP, more than one candidate (to run for election for a seat) can run.  Local Members then by way of plebiscite (vote) determine who the candidate will be.  If your emphasis is on the 'head office' aspect, yes I'm sure that happens but there is still the option for many to seek endorsement.

Odd really.  In  Fisher (Slipper's seat) there were several LNP candidates for endorsement including Brough and a bloke called McGrath, and it was McGrath LNP Head Office wanted.  Brough won the vote because he had stacked the LNP Membership of the local (Kawana) LNP Branch.  So HQ's man does not always get up.

Aussie wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 3:39pm:

Quote: I think John is, I know I am, talking about local branch members choosing their own candidate (preferably local) to run for election without interference from Head Office. As with the LNP, more than one candidate (to run for election for a seat) can run.  Local Members then by way of plebiscite (vote) determine who the candidate will be.  If your emphasis is on the 'head office' aspect, yes I'm sure that happens but there is still the option for many to seek endorsement. Odd really.  In  Fisher (Slipper's seat) there were several LNP candidates for endorsement including Brough and a bloke called McGrath, and it was McGrath LNP Head Office wanted.  Brough won the vote because he had stacked the LNP Membership of the local (Kawana) LNP Branch.  So HQ's man does not always get up.

I associate plebiscite (non-binding vote) with referendum (binding vote) on a national basis where all voters (Australia wide)  :)are asked to decide a proposal.

At local branch level, yes, you can have any number of nominees from which a candidate has to be selected to run in the election, be it local, state, or federal

And Yes again....
I expect HO to butt-out and leave the selection of a local candidate to the local branch members.

Notwithstanding, of course, evidence of blatant branch stacking.

Lobo wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 2:50pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 2:45pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 8th, 2013 at 9:17pm: the only thing that needs to change is that representatives for any area should be chosen by the rank and file in that area .... if that had happened they wouldn't have owed their loyalty to either Rudd or Gillard and none of this would have happened in the first place. I have long been an advocate for this, even to the extent of putting up a candidate in defiance of Head Office and supporting ONLY that candidate. :) Capacity for that has existed for decades, and still does.  Plebiscites, they are known as. I think John is, I know I am, talking about local branch members choosing their own candidate (preferably local) to run for election without interference from Head Office. :)

that's exactly what I was talking about froggie, thanks for clarifying that

The federal Labor Caucus has approved the Prime Minister's plan to allow party members half the votes in electing the leader of the party.

Caucus members gathered at Balmain Town Hall to vote on the reforms, which Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said were aimed at bringing back disillusioned party members and encouraging others.

It is nearly a month since Caucus reinstated him in the job he was dumped from three years ago.

Now, for a leadership spill to occur in government, 75 per cent of Caucus will need to sign a petition to force a ballot.

However, they decided Mr Rudd's proposal for a 75 per cent threshold of Caucus support to trigger a leadership ballot in opposition was too high.

Labor backbencher Daryl Melham says there was overwhelming support to lower the cut-off to 60 per cent.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/rudd-wins-caucus-support-for-party-reform/4835506

Gee Nappy, thanks for that breaking news!



Aussie wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Did some very clevah dick up there ^^^^^^ mention that 60% was a more likely number, and that Rudd's proposals would get through. Today was the day Rudd also got the ALP back on a better standing internally. Kevin is going pretty damn fine, thank you very much!

Aussie wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 4:57pm:

Gee Nappy, thanks for that breaking news! Aussie wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 2:16pm: Did some very clevah dick up there ^^^^^^ mention that 60% was a more likely number, and that Rudd's proposals would get through. Today was the day Rudd also got the ALP back on a better standing internally. Kevin is going pretty damn fine, thank you very much!

I posted the EVIDENCE you fwit ... ::)

Neferti wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 5:19pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 4:57pm: Gee Nappy, thanks for that breaking news! Aussie wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 2:16pm: Did some very clevah dick up there ^^^^^^ mention that 60% was a more likely number, and that Rudd's proposals would get through. Today was the day Rudd also got the ALP back on a better standing internally. Kevin is going pretty damn fine, thank you very much! I posted the EVIDENCE you fwit ... ::)

Aren't you supposed to be a clevah www dick?  Click on the 'very clevah dick up there ^^^^^^' (in red) and hey presto, you will see that I posted the evidence 'you bugger wit.'

:D

And the Labor party just rolls over on one principle after another in the pursuit of power under the psychopath, Rudd. And the gutless laborites just nod their heads in agreement rather than in shame. Yes, Rudd might just win but the government her presides over may literally destroy the ALP. That would be a price Rudd is willing to pay - since he wouldn't be paying it.  But the rest of you?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 7:02pm:

And the Labor party just rolls over on one principle after another in the pursuit of power under the psychopath, Rudd. And the gutless laborites just nod their heads in agreement rather than in shame. Yes, Rudd might just win but the government her presides over may literally destroy the ALP. That would be a price Rudd is willing to pay - since he wouldn't be paying it.  But the rest of you?

Dunno about you melielongtime, but I'm happy that a strong step has been taken to stop Achmed by way of deterring people from getting on his crappy boat. 

Aussie wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 7:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 7:02pm: And the Labor party just rolls over on one principle after another in the pursuit of power under the psychopath, Rudd. And the gutless laborites just nod their heads in agreement rather than in shame. Yes, Rudd might just win but the government her presides over may literally destroy the ALP. That would be a price Rudd is willing to pay - since he wouldn't be paying it.  But the rest of you? Dunno about you melielongtime, but I'm happy that a strong step has been taken to stop Achmed by way of deterring people from getting on his crappy boat.

but as the details come through we see that it has no hope of making any difference.  It only applies to single males and it still has no solution for those NOT accepted as refugees. And there appears to be a limit which could be as few as 600 per annum.  It is just another screwup by Rudd that will actually make little to no difference to the numbers arriving.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 7:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 7:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 7:02pm: And the Labor party just rolls over on one principle after another in the pursuit of power under the psychopath, Rudd. And the gutless laborites just nod their heads in agreement rather than in shame. Yes, Rudd might just win but the government her presides over may literally destroy the ALP. That would be a price Rudd is willing to pay - since he wouldn't be paying it.  But the rest of you? Dunno about you melielongtime, but I'm happy that a strong step has been taken to stop Achmed by way of deterring people from getting on his crappy boat.  but as the details come through we see that it has no hope of making any difference.  It only applies to single males and it still has no solution for those NOT accepted as refugees. And there appears to be a limit which could be as few as 600 per annum.  It is just another screwup by Rudd that will actually make little to no difference to the numbers arriving.

melielongtime, I'm happy to debate issues on the facts, not your stupid strawman garbage.  The solution is this.....if you arrive by Achmed's boat you will either go to Manus Paradus or from whence you came.  If you choose Manus Paradus, then the blokes go now, and the wives and kids follow when Manus Paradus is fitted with powder rooms and swings.

What part of that do you not fully understand?

Rudd's crashing alright.
A wheel has come off the Ruddmobile whilst he's racing along making his policy on the run. ;D

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Rudd's crashing alright. A wheel has come off the Ruddmobile whilst he's racing along making his policy on the run. ;D

http://www.aboutlogodesign.com/Images/start-my/start-my-slogan-design.gif

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 7:02pm:

And the Labor party just rolls over on one principle after another in the pursuit of power under the psychopath, Rudd. And the gutless laborites just nod their heads in agreement rather than in shame. Yes, Rudd might just win but the government her presides over may literally destroy the ALP. That would be a price Rudd is willing to pay - since he wouldn't be paying it.  But the rest of you?

Weren't you the one claiming he had no principles? How can he roll over something he doesn't have? You Dope!